checkAd

    Guten Morgen Mr. Bush - 500 Beiträge pro Seite (Seite 21)

    eröffnet am 12.02.03 11:51:02 von
    neuester Beitrag 08.05.06 04:37:46 von
    Beiträge: 35.423
    ID: 695.186
    Aufrufe heute: 17
    Gesamt: 526.597
    Aktive User: 0


     Durchsuchen
    • 1
    • 21
    • 71

    Begriffe und/oder Benutzer

     

    Top-Postings

     Ja Nein
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 09:30:46
      Beitrag Nr. 10.001 ()
      Bush fails schools test
      Julian Borger in Washington
      Thursday December 4, 2003
      The Guardian

      A Texas education "miracle" that helped establish George Bush as an effective reformer, and later became a model for US schools nationally, may have been a mirage, it was reported yesterday.

      When Mr Bush was governor, the improvement of low-income pupils in Houston was hailed as a triumph of testing and school accountability.

      A state test, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), showed remarkable gains by school students in the 1990s, and the apparent evaporation of a gap between white and minority children.

      Houston`s schools superintendent, Rod Paige, became education secretary in the Bush administration, and the city became the model for a national law, the No Child Left Behind Act, under which schools would lose federal funds if their pupils failed to show Houston-like results.

      An analysis by the New York Times and educationalists, using the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT), found Houston no better than other cities, sometimes worse; furthermore it found the minority gap was still significant. Although 88% of Houston`s school students are black or ethnically Latin American, state figures showed that only a few hundred of those leave school "college ready".

      Mr Paige said TAAS and SAT scores could not be directly compared, but several educationalists disagreed.

      Texas has also been found to have undercounted school dropouts.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 09:32:24
      Beitrag Nr. 10.002 ()
      Restart the trade talks
      Leader
      Thursday December 4, 2003
      The Guardian

      President Bush`s tardiness in removing the March 2002 tariffs on imported steel is, presumably, related to this week`s tour of Pittsburgh, which included a fund-raising dinner co-hosted by the president of US Steel, the largest steel manufacturer. Unsurprisingly, steel manufacturers and their unions support tariffs. For them, anything that keeps out the competition must be good. But US steel users, suffering increases in costs of up to 30% on imports, think otherwise, as do most other sectors, including consumers. Mr Bush will not deserve plaudits if and when he removes the tariffs for the simple reason they should never have been introduced in the first place. They were declared illegal by the World Trade Organisation and should have been abolished as soon as the judgment was made. Failure to comply with the WTO ruling is not only wrong morally, economically and legally, but it would also trigger immediate sanctions by the EU, Japan and other nations, quite possibly leading to a tit-for-tat trade war. Last week, the US proposed new taxes on colour television sets from China, only a week after starting proceedings to impose quotas on a range of Chinese textiles, including some not made in the US. China is not the villain this time. Sure, her exports are extremely competitive (partly as a result of the country`s currency being pegged to the depreciating dollar), but at the same time China`s ravenous appetite for imports is one of the few strongly expansionary factors in the world economy.

      America`s huge trade deficit ($543bn and still rising) is very worrying; but resorting to protectionism is not the way to deal with it, especially not when the US economy is displaying signs of strong job-creating growth. The lowering of trade barriers - as successive international trade rounds have shown - is a proven way to boost world growth. Resorting to trade barriers, except in special circumstances, can all too easily bring about a contraction of world trade that damages everyone. This is a vulnerable time for world trade because efforts to revive the latest round of trade talks stalled in Cancun over two months ago, when developing countries refused to roll over and accept draconian western conditions for the talks. As the world`s biggest economy by far, the US ought to be playing a leading role in planning the next round of tariff cuts, instead of undermining them with a series of protectionist measures designed to raise presidential support in areas where the Republican vote is soft.

      In theory, the stalled talks should resume in the middle of this month, but the willingness of the US and the EU to reduce their huge domestic networks of farming subsidies - a key issue in the talks - has yet to be demonstrated. Politicians talk a lot in theory about the need to reduce or abolish agricultural subsidies, without being prepared to do anything substantial about it in practice. This is a time when nothing will happen unless someone makes it happen. But as long as heads of state can plead the imminence of elections as a reason for not facing up to domestic lobbies, nothing will be done. Every month, some country or other has an election. If Mr Bush could leapfrog over domestic politics and take personal charge of making the trade talks succeed, he could regain some of the credibility abroad that he has forfeited in recent years.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 09:33:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.003 ()
      Report: Japan to Send Troops to Iraq

      Thursday December 4, 2003 8:16 AM


      By KENJI HALL

      Associated Press Writer

      TOKYO (AP) - Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has approved a plan to start sending 1,000 troops for non-combat duty in Iraq by the end of December, a newspaper reported Thursday.

      The report in the major Mainichi daily came as the bodies of two diplomats slain in Iraq were sent back to Japan. Their deaths, the first Japanese fatalities in Iraq since the start of the U.S.-led war in March, heightened fears that sending troops would make Japan a target of terrorist attacks.

      Mainichi said Koizumi made the decision Wednesday after he was briefed about a military fact-finding mission`s trip to Iraq. The Cabinet was expected to approve the dispatch plan next week and Japan`s defense chief, Shigeru Ishiba, would have final say on when the 1,000 air, sea and ground forces would be sent, according to the report.

      Another national daily, the Yomiuri, said a force of 1,100 would be dispatched to provide medical and other humanitarian aid.

      Japan`s pacifist constitution strictly limits the role of the military. Parliament passed a special law in July authorizing a dispatch of non-combat troops, but the constitutional limitations are so tight that the new law only allows the troops to go to areas deemed safe. A provision was even required to let them carry weapons.

      Tokyo hopes to have an advance team of air force personnel in Iraq sometime this month and to transport aircraft and troops there by January. Ground forces would follow, arriving in the southern city of Samawah in February, according to the reports.

      Despite Koizumi`s resolve to send Japanese troops to help rebuild the country, he has faced increasingly vehement opposition, particularly since Iraqi gunmen killed the two Japanese diplomats over the weekend.

      A plane carrying their bodies was due to arrive in Tokyo on Thursday. Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi and a contingent of senior officials planned to meet the families of the diplomats on the tarmac at Narita international airport.

      The two men - Katsuhiko Oku, 45, and Masamori Inoue, 30 - were killed in Tikrit, north of Baghdad, on Saturday while on their way to a conference on reconstruction.

      A poll published by Mainichi on Monday showed that more than 80 percent of Japanese had reservations about sending troops.

      U.S. Ambassador Howard H. Baker Jr. said he was encouraged that there may be a decision on the specifics of the troop dispatch soon.

      ``The likelihood that Japan will dispatch self-defense forces in great numbers to Iraq at this time, I think, is very remote,`` he said at a luncheon for foreign correspondents. ``But the fact that it may send any ... has enormous symbolic effect as well as practical effect.``

      ``I don`t think it matters so much whether it`s 300 people or a thousand or 30,000,`` he added.







      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 09:35:03
      Beitrag Nr. 10.004 ()
      US under pressure to back claims over Iraq firefight
      By Phil Reeves in Baghdad
      04 December 2003


      Pressure is mounting on the United States military to support its claim to have killed 54 Iraqi guerrillas in the biggest battle since George Bush declared an end to major combat seven months ago.

      Scepticism about the US`s version of the death toll has been expressed within upper echelons of the occupation authorities. A US combat leader who was involved in the battle has also denounced the military`s account of the battle.

      The controversy began on Sunday last week when Iraqi guerrillas attacked two US military convoys escorting new Iraqi currency to banks in Samarra, a Sunni town which is a hotbed of anti-US sentiment.

      The US military said later on the same day that it had killed 46 attackers in a battle between insurgents and American soldiers. The army later amended the number of dead upwards to 54. It said its evidence came from US soldiers and commanders involved in the clashes.

      Iraqi hospital officials and police say the death toll was far lower - eight with some 55 injured. Iraqi residents have given conflicting and inconsistent accounts of the battle including an erroneous claim that a mosque was hit by an American missile.

      The US military believes the bodies of the 54 dead were swiftly collected and buried. But is questionable whether the guerrillas` families or surviving combatants would have risked recovering known members of the resistance in a town which is under constant US surveillance; the Americans have a base in Samarra.

      The question is whether the US and the occupation authorities have misled the media.

      The credibility of the US military was dented in April after it supplied inaccurate information about the killing of 14 Iraqis in Fallujah by the 82nd Airborne Division, when its soldiers opened fire on demonstrators . In the aftermath of the killings US Central Command said that it was unable to say whether any Iraqis had been killed. However, in Samarra the US army says its soldiers performed fixed procedures for counting those killed and wounded.

      These include a battle damage assessment - in which reports are made by US soldiers as the fighting occurs and immediately afterwards - and an after-action report in which soldiers go through what happened in greater detail.

      Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said: "We have no reason to believe that those were inaccurate figures. We stand by those numbers, they were provided by soldiers that were involved in the engagement and we see no reason to suggest those numbers are incorrect."
      4 December 2003 09:34


      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 09:36:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.005 ()
      America`s war on nature
      For decades, US corporate interests have systematically sabotaged efforts to protect the environment. But the Bush years have seen the polluters encouraged to despoil as never before. Robert F Kennedy Jr laments
      04 December 2003


      George Bush will go down in history as America`s worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America`s environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country`s air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation`s most important environmental laws by the end of the year. Under the guidance of the Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has hidden its anti-environmental programme behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats.

      The Bush attack was not entirely unexpected. George Bush had the grimmest environmental record of any governor during his tenure in Texas. Texas became No 1 in air and water pollution and in the release of toxic chemicals. In his six years in Austin, Bush championed a short-term pollution-based prosperity, which enriched his political contributors and corporate cronies by lowering the quality of life for everyone else. Now President Bush is set to do the same to America. After three years, his policies are already bearing fruit.

      I am angry both as a citizen and a father. Three of my sons have asthma, and I watch them struggle to breathe on bad-air days. And they are comparatively lucky: one in four African-American children in New York shares this affliction; their suffering is often unrelieved because they lack the insurance and high-quality healthcare that keep my sons alive. My kids are among the millions of Americans who cannot enjoy the seminal American experience of fishing locally with their dad and eating their catch. Most freshwater fish in New York, and all in Connecticut, are now under consumption advisories. A main source of mercury pollution in America, as well as asthma-provoking ozone and particulates, is the coal-burning power plants that President Bush recently excused from complying with the Clean Air Act.

      Furthermore, the deadly addiction to fossil fuels that White House policies encourage has squandered our treasury, entangled us in foreign wars, diminished our international prestige, made us a target for terrorist attacks and increased our reliance on petty Middle Eastern dictators who are hated by their own people.

      When the Republican right managed to install George Bush as President in 2000, the movement`s leaders once again set about doing what they had attempted to do since the Reagan years: to eviscerate the infrastructure of laws and regulations that protect the environment. For 25 years it has been like the zombie that keeps coming back from the grave.

      The attacks began on Inauguration Day, when Bush`s chief of staff and former General Motors lobbyist Andrew Card quietly initiated a moratorium on all recently adopted regulations. Since then, the White House has enlisted every federal agency that oversees environmental programmes in a co-ordinated effort to relax rules aimed at the oil, coal, logging, mining and chemical industries as well as car-makers, real-estate developers, corporate agribusiness and other industries.

      This onslaught is being co-ordinated through the White House Office of Management and Budget - or, more precisely, OMB`s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, under the direction of John Graham, the engine-room mechanic of the Bush stealth strategy. Graham`s speciality is promoting changes in scientific and economic assumptions that underlie regulation - such as recalculating cost-benefit analyses to favour polluters. Before the White House, Graham was founding director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, where he received funding from America`s champion corporate polluters: Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, Alcoa, Exxon, General Electric and General Motors.

      Penalties imposed for environmental violations have plummeted under Bush. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed eliminating 270 enforcement staffers, which would reduce staff levels to the lowest ever. Inspections of polluting businesses have dipped by 15 per cent. Criminal cases referred for federal prosecution have dropped by 40 per cent.

      The EPA measures its success by the amount of pollution reduced or prevented as a result of its own actions. Last year, the EPA`s two most senior career enforcement officials resigned after decades of service. They cited the administration`s refusal to carry out environmental laws.

      The White House has masked its attacks with euphemisms that would have embarrassed George Orwell. George Bush`s "Healthy Forests" initiative promotes destructive logging of old-growth forests. His "Clear Skies" programme, which repealed key provisions of the Clean Air Act, allows more emissions. The administration uses misleading code words, such as streamlining or reforming instead of weakening, and thinning instead of logging.

      Bush seems to be trying to take us all the way back to the Dark Ages by undermining the very principles of our environmental rights, which civilised nations have always recognised. Clean-air laws in England, passed in the 14th century, made it a capital offence to burn coal in London, and violators were executed for the crime. These "public trust" rights to unspoiled air, water and wildlife descended to the people of the United States after the American Revolution. Until 1870, a factory releasing even small amounts of smoke on to public or private property was operating illegally.

      But during the Gilded Age, when the corporate robber barons captured the political and judicial systems, those rights were stolen from the American people. As the Industrial Revolution morphed into the postwar industrial boom, Americans found themselves paying a high price for the resulting pollution. The wake-up call came in the late Sixties, when Lake Erie was declared dead and Cleveland`s Cuyahoga River exploded in colossal infernos.

      In 1970, more than 20 million Americans took to the streets protesting about the state of the environment on the first Earth Day. Whether they knew it or not, they were demanding a return of ancient rights. During the next few years, Congress passed 28 major environmental statutes, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and it created the Environmental Protection Agency to apply and enforce these new laws.

      Earth Day caught polluters off guard. But in the next 30 years, they mounted an increasingly sophisticated and aggressive counterattack to undermine these laws. The Bush administration is a culmination of their three-decade campaign.

      In 1980, the candidate Ronald Reagan declared: "I am a Sagebrush Rebel," marking a major turning point of the modern anti-environmental movement. In the early 1980s, the Western extractive industries, led by one of Colorado`s worst polluters, the brewer Joseph Coors, organised the Sagebrush Rebellion, a coalition of industry money and right-wing ideologues that helped to elect Reagan president.

      The big polluters who started the Sagebrush Rebellion were successful because they managed to broaden their constituency with anti-regulatory, anti-labour and anti-environmental rhetoric that had great appeal both among Christian fundamentalist leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and in certain western communities where hostility to government is deeply rooted.

      Coors founded the Mountain States Legal Foundation in 1976 to bring lawsuits designed to enrich giant corporations, limit civil rights and attack unions, homosexuals and minorities. He also founded the right-wing Heritage Foundation to provide a philosophical underpinning for the anti-environmental movement.

      From its conception, the Heritage Foundation and its neoconservative cronies urged followers to "strangle the environmental movement," which Heritage named "the greatest single threat to the American economy". Ronald Reagan`s victory gave the Heritage Foundation and the Mountain States Legal Foundation immeasurable clout. Heritage became known as Reagan`s "shadow government" and its 2,000-page manifesto, "Mandate for Change," became a blueprint for his administration.

      Coors handpicked his Colorado associates: Anne Gorsuch became the EPA administrator; her husband, Robert Burford, a cattle baron who had vowed to destroy the Bureau of Land Management, was selected to head that very agency. Most notoriously, Coors chose James Watt, the president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, as the Secretary of the Interior. Watt was a proponent of "dominion theology," an authoritarian Christian heresy that advocates man`s duty to "subdue" nature. His deep faith in laissez-faire capitalism and apocalyptic Christianity led Watt to set about dismantling his department and distributing its assets rather than managing them for future generations. During a Senate hearing, he cited the approaching Apocalypse to explain why he was giving away America`s sacred places at fire-sale prices: "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns."

      Meanwhile, Anne Gorsuch gutted the EPA`s budget by 60 per cent, crippling its ability to write regulations or enforce the law. She appointed lobbyists fresh from their stints in paper, asbestos, chemical and oil companies to run each of the principal agency departments. Her chief counsel was an Exxon lawyer; her head of enforcement was from General Motors.

      These attacks on the environment precipitated a public revolt. By 1983, more than a million Americans and all 125 American-Indian tribes had signed a petition demanding Watt`s removal. After being forced out of office, Watt was indicted on 25 felony counts of influence-peddling. Gorsuch and 23 of her cronies were forced to resign following a congressional investigation of sweetheart deals with polluters, including Coors. Her first deputy, Rita Lavelle, was jailed for perjury. The indictments and resignations put a temporary damper on the Sagebrush Rebels, but they quickly regrouped as the "Wise Use" movement. The Wise Use founder, the timber-industry spokesman Ron Arnold, said: "Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement. We want to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely."

      By 1994, Wise Use helped to propel Newt Gingrich to the Speaker`s chair of the House of Representatives and turn his anti-environmental manifesto, "The Contract with America," into law. Gingrich`s chief of environmental policy was Tom DeLay, the one-time Houston exterminator who was determined to rid the world of pesky pesticide regulations and to promote a biblical world-view. He targeted the Endangered Species Act as the second-greatest threat to Texas after illegal aliens.

      Gingrich and DeLay had learnt from the James Watt débâcle that they had to conceal their radical agenda. Carefully eschewing public debates on their initiatives, they mounted a stealth attack on America`s environmental laws. Rather than pursue a frontal assault against popular statutes, such as the Endangered Species, Clean Water and Clean Air acts, they tried to undermine these laws by attaching silent riders to must-pass budget bills.

      But the public got wise. Moderate Republicans teamed up with the Clinton administration to block the worst of it. My group, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), as well as the Sierra Club and the US Public Interest Research Group, generated more than one million letters to Congress. When President Clinton shut down the government in December 1995 rather than pass a budget bill spangled with anti-environmental riders, the tide turned against Gingrich and DeLay. By the end of that month, even conservatives disavowed the attack. "We lost the battle on the environment," DeLay conceded.

      Today, with the presidency and both houses of Congress under the anti-environmentalists` control, they are set to eviscerate the despised laws. White House strategy is to promote its unpopular policies by lying about its agenda, cheating on the science and stealing the language and rhetoric of the environmental movement.

      Even as the pollster Luntz acknowledged that the scientific evidence is against the Republicans on issues like global warming, he advised them to find scientists willing to hoodwink the public. "You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue," he told Republicans, "by becoming even more active in recruiting experts sympathetic to your view."

      In autumn 2001, the Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, provided the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with her agency`s scientific assessment that Arctic oil-drilling would not harm hundreds of thousands of caribou. Not long afterwards, Fish and Wildlife Service biologists contacted the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which defends scientists and other professionals working in state and federal environmental agencies. "The scientists provided us the science that they had submitted to Norton and the altered version that she had given to Congress a week later," said the group`s executive director, Jeff Ruch. There were 17 major substantive changes, all of them minimising the reported impacts. When Norton was asked about the alterations in October 2001, she dismissed them as typographical errors.

      There is no scientific debate in which the White House has cooked the books more than that of global warming. The Bush administration has altered, suppressed or attempted to discredit close to a dozen major reports on the subject. These include a 10-year study by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), commissioned by the President`s father in 1993 in his own efforts to dodge what was already a virtual scientific consensus blaming industrial emissions for global warming.

      After disavowing the Kyoto protocol, the Bush administration commissioned the federal government`s National Academy of Sciences to find holes in the IPCC`s analysis. But this ploy backfired. The NAS not only confirmed the existence of global warming and its connection to industrial greenhouse gases; it also predicted that the effects of climate change would be worse than previously believed, estimating that global temperatures will rise by between 2.5F and 10.4F by 2100.

      In July this year, EPA scientists leaked a study, which the agency had ordered suppressed in May, showing that a Senate plan ­ co-sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain ­ to reduce the pollution that causes global warming could achieve its goal at very small cost. Bush reacted by launching a $100m 10-year effort to prove that global temperature changes have, in fact, occurred naturally ­ another delay tactic for the fossil-fuel barons.

      There is no better example of the corporate cronyism now hijacking American democracy than the White House`s cozy relationship with the energy industry. The energy industry contributed more than $48m to Republicans in the 2000 election cycle, with $3m to George Bush. Both Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney came out of the oil patch. Thirty-one of the Bush transition team`s 48 members had energy-industry ties. Bush`s cabinet and White House staff is an energy-industry dream team ­ four cabinet secretaries, the six most powerful White House officials and more than 20 high-level appointees are alumni of the industry and its allies.

      Days after his inauguration, Bush launched the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney. For three months, the task force held closed-door meetings with energy-industry representatives ­ then refused to disclose the names of the participants.

      For the first time in history, the nonpartisan General Accounting Office sued the executive branch, for access to these records. The NRDC put in a Freedom of Information Act request, and when Cheney did not respond, we also sued. On 21 February 2002, under a court order, the NRDC obtained some 20,000 documents. Although none of the logs on the Vice-President`s meetings have been released yet and the pages were heavily redacted to prevent disclosure of useful information, the documents still allow glimpses of the process.

      In the winter and spring of 2001, executives and lobbyists from the oil, coal, electric-utility and nuclear industries tramped in and out of the cabinet room and Cheney`s office. Many of the lobbyists had just left posts inside Bush`s presidential campaign to work for companies that had donated lavishly to that effort. Companies that made large contributions were given special access. Executives from Enron Corp, which contributed $2.5m to the Republicans from 1999 to 2002, had contact with the task force at least 10 times, including six face-to-face meetings between top officials and Cheney.

      After one meeting with the Enron chief executive Kenneth Lay, Cheney dismissed California Governor Gray Davis`s request to cap the state`s energy prices. That denial would enrich Enron and nearly bankrupt California. It has since emerged that the state`s energy crisis was largely engineered by Enron. According to The New York Times, the task-force staff circulated a memo that suggested "utilising" the crisis to justify expanded oil and gas drilling. President Bush and others would cite the California crisis to call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

      When it was suggested that access to the administration was for sale, Cheney hardly apologised. "Just because somebody makes a campaign contribution doesn`t mean that they should be denied the opportunity to express their view to government officials," he said.

      The energy task-force plan is a $20bn subsidy to the oil, coal and nuclear industries, which are already swimming in record revenues. In May this year, as the House passed the plan and as the rest of the nation stagnated in a recession abetted by high oil prices, Exxon announced that its profits had tripled from the previous quarter`s record earnings. The energy plan recommends opening protected lands and waters to oil and gas drilling and building up to 1,900 electricity power-plants. National treasures such as the California and Florida coasts, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the areas around Yellowstone Park will be opened for plunder for the trivial amounts of fossil fuels they contain. While increasing reliance on oil, coal and nuclear power, the plan cuts the budget for research into energy efficiency and alternative power sources by nearly a third. "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue," Cheney explained, but it should not be the basis of "comprehensive energy policy".

      On 27 August last year ­ while most of America was heading off for a Labor Day weekend ­ the administration announced that it would redefine carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming, so that it would no longer be considered a pollutant and would therefore not be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The next day, the White House repealed the act`s "new source review" provision, which requires companies to modernise pollution control when they modify their plants.

      According to the National Academy of Sciences, the White House rollback will cause 30,000 Americans to die prematurely each year. Although the regulation will probably be reversed in the courts, the damage will have been done, and power utilities such as Southern Co will escape criminal prosecution. As soon as the new regulations were announced, John Pemberton, the chief of staff to the EPA`s assistant administrator for air, left to work for Southern.

      On 30 August this year, President Bush nominated Utah`s three-term Republican Governor Mike Leavitt to replace his beleaguered EPA head, Christine Todd Whitman, who was driven from office, humiliated in even her paltry efforts to moderate the pillage. In October, Leavitt was confirmed by the Senate.

      Like Gale Norton, Leavitt has a winning personality and a disastrous environmental record. Under his leadership, Utah tied for last as the state with the worst environmental enforcement record and ranked second-worst (behind Texas) for both air quality and toxic releases.

      I was taught that communism leads to dictatorship and capitalism to democracy. But as we`ve seen from the Bush administration, the latter proposition does not always hold. While free markets tend to democratise a society, unfettered capitalism leads invariably to corporate control of government. Corporate capitalists do not want free markets, they want dependable profits, and their surest route is to crush competition by controlling government. The rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s offers many lessons on how corporate power can undermine a democracy.Mussolini complained that "fascism should really be called `corporatism`".

      Today, George Bush and his court are treating our country as a grab bag for the robber barons, doling out the commons to large polluters. Last year, as the calamitous rollbacks multiplied, the corporate-owned TV networks devoted less than 4 per cent of their news minutes to environmental stories. If they knew the truth, most Americans would share my fury that this president is allowing his corporate cronies to steal America from our children.

      Robert F Kennedy Jr is senior staff attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. A longer version of this article will appear in the issue of `Rolling Stone` magazine dated 11 December 2003
      4 December 2003 09:35



      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

      Trading Spotlight

      Anzeige
      Rallye II. – Neuer Anstoß, News und was die Börsencommunity jetzt nicht verpassen will…mehr zur Aktie »
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 09:37:09
      Beitrag Nr. 10.006 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 09:50:10
      Beitrag Nr. 10.007 ()
      Wollen wir hoffen, dass diese Schmierenschauspieler nicht auch noch die nächste Posting-Myriade überleben...

      Glückwunsch von einem Fan dieses Fan-Threads!
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 10:13:59
      Beitrag Nr. 10.008 ()
      Noam Chomsky: You Ask The Questions
      (Such as: is human survival really under serious threat? And how easy is it for you, as a linguist, to understand teenage slang?)
      04 December 2003
      http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?stor…

      Professor Noam Chomsky, 74, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, into the only Jewish family in a lower-middle-class neighbourhood. He took a degree and then a PhD in linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. At the age of 29, he published Syntactic Structures, which revolutionised the study of language. In 1964, he began openly resisting the Vietnam War, and published his first collection of political writings five years later. He has remained a major authority on both linguistics and political theory ever since. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with his wife, Carol, and has three children.

      If you had only one question to ask the Presidentof the United States, what would it be?
      Michael Kulas, by e-mail

      Why doesn`t he abdicate, thus doing the world a great favour?

      What has been your biggest mistake, and would you make it again if you could relive your life?
      Steve Womble, Sunderland

      The failure to do anywhere near enough to try to put an end to suffering and crimes for which I share responsibility as a citizen of a free country, enjoying unusual privilege and opportunity. But that is a mistake I make every day.

      Is anti-Semitism on the increase?
      Ricardo Parreira, London

      In the West, fortunately, it scarcely exists now, though it did in the past. There is, of course, what the Anti-Defamation League calls "the real anti-Semitism", more dangerous than the old-fashioned kind: criticism of policies of the state of Israel and US support for them, opposition to a vast US military budget, etc. In contrast, anti-Arab racism is rampant. The manifestations are shocking, in elite intellectual circles as well, but arouse little concern because they are considered legitimate: the most extreme form of racism.

      Where is the "silent genocide" you predicted would happen in Afghanistan if the US intervened there in 2001?
      Mike Dudley, Ipswich

      That is an interesting fabrication, which gives a good deal of insight into the prevailing moral and intellectual culture. First, the facts: I predicted nothing. Rather, I reported the grim warnings from virtually every knowledgeable source that the attack might lead to an awesome humanitarian catastrophe, and the bland announcements in the press that Washington had ordered Pakistan to eliminate "truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan`s civilian population".

      All of this is precisely accurate and entirely appropriate. The warnings remain accurate as well, a truism that should be unnecessary to explain. Unfortunately, it is apparently necessary to add a moral truism: actions are evaluated in terms of the range of anticipated consequences.

      Will there be a state of Israel in 50 years` time? What form will it take?
      Jo Honer, Portsmouth

      There is still a bare prospect for the kind of two-state settlement that has been supported by a broad international consensus since the mid-1970s, including the majority of Americans, but has been unilaterally barred by the US. But that prospect is fading fast. Israel is in no danger as a state, but for the Palestinians, the future is not pleasant to contemplate.

      Do you think the Iraqi people would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power?
      Clive Norton, Godalming

      Certainly not. That is why I have opposed US-UK policies since they began their strong support for the murderous thug 25 years ago, continuing long after his worst atrocities were well-known. They returned to support for Saddam in 1991 when he crushed a rebellion that might have overthrown him, because they held the "strikingly unanimous view [that] whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country`s stability than did those who have suffered his repression" (New York Times).

      To counter all the depressing news reports about seemingly omnipotent corporations, corrupt politicians and ignorant or disenfranchised subjects, are there any recent "points of light", that would encourage hope?
      Michael Pilkington, by e-mail

      I can only repeat what I`ve often written. The US, and the West generally, has become far more civilised in the past 40 years, thanks to the activism of mostly young people in the 1960s and since. It is easy to give examples, including opposition to aggression and massacre, but also in many other domains as well. Of course, every effort is made to induce hopelessness and despair, but there is no reason to succumb. The future is in our hands, and the opportunities today are far greater than they have been in the past.

      What has been the biggest mistake of Tony Blair`s premiership?
      Sarah Paulsen, London

      From my perspective, his virtually reflexive support for atrocious policies carried out in Washington.

      As a linguist, do you understand 21st-century teenage slang?
      Jackie Dean, Birmingham

      I cannot understand the words of the music my grandchildren listen to, or sometimes them either, but that has nothing to do with being a linguist: rather, becoming an old codger. I had the same problem 40 years ago, though.

      You have mentioned on several occasions that human survival may be at stake, in reference to the quest for world domination stated explicitly by the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States. How serious is this threat? And how can we reduce it?
      Kelly Patrick Gerling, Kansas, USA

      The threat is serious. The declaration was followed by actions to demonstrate that these are not empty words. One was the virtual announcement that Iraq would be invaded, without international authorisation or credible pretext. The administration also moved at once to block international efforts to enforce bio-weapons treaties, to ban militarisation of space and to reaffirm protocols banning bacteriological weapons. It also announced that it would move from "control" to "ownership" of space, proceeding with plans to use space for offensive weapons and surveillance systems that place the world at the mercy of a devastating attack without warning.

      Of course, others react. As predicted, the weak react by resorting to terror and WMD; the strong by building up their own offensive capacities. Russia has rapidly expanded its offensive weapons, adopted the Bush first-strike doctrine and moved to automated delivery systems, an extreme hazard. China is doing much the same, with a ripple effect spreading to India, Pakistan and beyond.

      Reducing the threats is easily within our means. We are fortunate to enjoy an unusual legacy of freedom and privilege and can act to change government policy in ways not available to others who, nevertheless, continue to struggle courageously in ways that should put us to shame.

      Do you listen to music while you write your books about the world`s problems? If so, what kind of music?
      Barbara Mallett, Hove

      I`m afraid I`m an old-fashioned conservative. I listen to classical music, but little from after the 1930s and mostly from long before. I don`t listen to music while I`m working.

      What do you do for fun? And do you have a favourite joke?
      Liz Sturt, Petworth

      I am constitutionally incapable of remembering jokes for more than 10 minutes. For fun? Grandchildren - something I highly recommend.
      4 December 2003 10:10



      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 10:18:02
      Beitrag Nr. 10.009 ()
      December 4, 2003
      NEWS ANALYSIS
      Sudden Shift on Detainee
      By NEIL A. LEWIS

      WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — When the Pentagon said this week that it would let an American being held as an enemy combatant meet a lawyer, which it had refused to do for months, it appeared on the surface to be a major concession to the critics of the policy of detaining terrorism suspects.

      But it may be that the action was less of a substantive change than merely a calculated gesture to help the administration shield its policies from criticism and reversal by the courts. The American, Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Louisianan of Saudi descent captured in fighting in Afghanistan, is under indefinite detention in a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C.

      Viet Dinh, a former assistant attorney general who had a major role in drafting antiterror policies, said in an interview on Wednesday that the decision to give Mr. Hamdi access to a lawyer was "a significant development in the case, one that moves the government to a more sustainable position before the court."

      But Mr. Dinh, who has returned to his professorship at the Georgetown University Law School, also said the administration needed to provide some better form of due process "to make its case bulletproof."

      The Pentagon made its statement about Mr. Hamdi`s ability to confer with a lawyer a day before the Justice Department was obliged to file a brief with the Supreme Court asking it to uphold a ruling by an appeals court that President Bush was within his rights as a wartime president to detain Mr. Hamdi indefinitely without access to a lawyer.

      The brief itself, however, does not retreat from the hard-line position the administration has taken all along, that the president has the authority to detain an American citizen indefinitely without consulting a lawyer.

      The administration does not concede in the brief that it has any obligation to allow Mr. Hamdi to meet with his lawyer, Frank W. Dunham Jr., the federal public defender in Virginia, although a footnote in the brief does say the two will soon be able to meet.

      The Pentagon explicitly said its decision was at its discretion and was taken only because intelligence officials had finished questioning Mr. Hamdi and no longer felt the need to keep him incommunicado.

      "They are trying to change at least the perception of unfairness that existed and show that they are giving this U.S. citizen some kind of rights," Pamela S. Falk, a professor of international law at the City University of New York, said. "This is clearly an attempt to defuse some of the reasonable fear among the public that the government was seeking extraordinary new powers to detain citizens in the war against terrorism."

      The president of the American Bar Association, Dennis W. Archer, said on Wednesday that although he was encouraged at the decision to let Mr. Hamdi see his lawyer, he was disappointed that the Pentagon said it was doing so only as a discretionary matter and not setting a precedent.

      Nonetheless, the permission may help the government`s case in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case involves not only the issue of whether an enemy combatant may consult with a lawyer, but also whether the combatant may be detained solely on the assertion of the president and the executive branch with no recourse to judicial review.

      Professor Dinh has suggested since leaving the government that the process needs to be reviewed.

      "Two years into the war against terror, along with the luxury of the relative safety that the administration has provided, has afforded an opportunity to have a conversation about a more systematic and sustainable set of procedures" for enemy combatants, he said.

      Those comments underline the fact that allowing Mr. Hamdi to see his lawyer does not necessarily mean anything will come of it. The administration still contends in its brief that Mr. Hamdi is not entitled to challenge his detention nor his designation as an enemy combatant.

      A second senior former official in the Justice Department, Judge Michael Chertoff, has also called for new methods of dealing with enemy combatants` rights of due process. Judge Chertoff, who was the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division, is on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia.

      A senior administration official said on Wednesday that letting Mr. Hamdi see a lawyer did not represent a stark change, because the government has always contended that detainees needed to be kept in isolation only until their questioning had ended. The administration first hinted at that view publicly last month, when it argued before a federal appeals court in New York that Jose Padilla, another American held as an enemy combatant, might be permitted to see a lawyer when his questioning had ended.

      The administration has argued that letting a detainee consult a lawyer before questioning is complete would render ineffective all efforts to obtain usable information. Not only might a lawyer advise a detainee not to cooperate, but the consultation, officials say, would also disturb the relationship between the detainee and the questioners.

      In addition to the decision to let Mr. Hamdi consult his lawyer, the administration has made other seeming concessions to foreign allies as to the circumstances in which their citizens detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, might be tried before military commissions. Last month, Australia said Washington had agreed to allow an Australian defense lawyer meet directly with and participate in the defense of David Hicks, 26, an Australian who joined the Taliban in 1999 and was captured with it. Mr. Hicks, who is at Guantánamo, who may soon face a tribunal.

      Australia and Britain have been assured that their citizens will not face the death penalty from any tribunals. At the same time, the administration is negotiating with other governments on their citizens at Guantánamo. Defense Department officials have said they may soon modify some of the rules established for military tribunals to satisfy some foreign critics.

      After reaching the accord with Australia, the first foreign government to declare that it was satisfied with the procedures for a military tribunal, the Pentagon said on Wednesday that it had assigned a military lawyer to represent Mr. Hicks, one of six detainees designated eligible for a tribunal.

      Pentagon officials acknowledged last weekend that they might soon release many the 660 people detained at Guantánamo. The detention of people, most of whom were captured in Pakistan and Afghanistan at the end of the Afghan campaign, has been a major irritant in relations with foreign governments.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 10:20:11
      Beitrag Nr. 10.010 ()
      December 4, 2003
      NEWS ANALYSIS
      Into Thin Air: Kyoto Accord May Not Die (or Matter)
      By ANDREW C. REVKIN

      Since it was negotiated in Japan in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol, the first treaty that would require countries to curb emissions linked to global warming, has lingered in an indeterminate state, between enactment and outright rejection.

      On Tuesday its prospects were dealt what may have been a fatal blow when a top Russian official said his country would not ratify it. But some experts on climate and diplomacy say that the fate of the Kyoto treaty itself is rapidly becoming less important than the longer-term processes it set in motion.

      Even without approval by the United States and Russia — first and fourth on lists of the world`s largest emitters of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases — the treaty has already changed the world in small but significant ways that will be hard to reverse, these experts say.

      From Europe to Japan and the United States, just the prospect of the treaty has resulted in legislation and new government and industry policies curbing emissions.

      The treaty`s future impact is limited by deep flaws, many experts say, including its lack of any emissions limits on China and other big developing countries and its short time frame, with terms extending only to 2012. As a result, they add, new approaches must be developed now if atmospheric levels of the gases are to be stabilized.

      The protocol has been approved by 120 countries but was rejected by President Bush in 2001. Without the United States, the only way to reach the threshold for enactment under the treaty`s terms was with Russian participation. If enacted, it would give industrialized countries until 2012 to reduce their combined emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases more than 5 percent below 1990 levels.

      The possibility remains that the statement on Tuesday by the Russian official, Andrei N. Illarionov, the top economic adviser to President Vladimir V. Putin, was just a negotiating ploy, aimed at extracting as many concessions as possible from the European Union and Japan, the treaty`s main supporters.

      On Wednesday a lower-level official, Mukhamed M. Tsikanov, a deputy economics minister, sounded a note of hope for the treaty, declaring, "There are no decisions about ratification apart from the fact that we are moving toward ratification." Mr. Putin, meanwhile, remained silent.

      Regardless of which way Russia steps, the process of moving the world toward limiting releases of the gases after more than a century of relentless increases has clearly begun, said David B. Sandalow, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration who worked on the treaty.

      "The standard of success isn`t whether the first treaty out of the box sails through," he said. "The standard is whether this puts the world on a path to solving a long-term problem. Other multilateral regimes dealing with huge complex problems, like the World Trade Organization, have taken 45 or 50 years to get established."

      Mr. Sandalow and other experts noted that the European Union had already passed a law requiring a cap and credit-trading system for the gases starting in 2005. It will follow the pattern laid out in Kyoto no matter what happens to the treaty.

      Even in the United States, where Mr. Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress strongly oppose the treaty, legislation that would require milder restrictions on emissions than those in the Kyoto treaty has gained some momentum.

      Opponents of the treaty acknowledge that it has already made a difference, though they say it is a harmful one.

      "Kyoto is dead and has been dead, but that doesn`t mean that it hasn`t done some real damage and won`t continue to do some real damage," said Myron Ebell, a climate policy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-backed group that opposes regulatory solutions to environmental problems.

      "If global warming turns out to be a problem, which I doubt, it won`t be solved by making ourselves poorer through energy rationing," he said. "It will be solved through building resiliency and capability into society and through long-term technological innovation and transformation."

      Critics of that view say the one feature of the Kyoto treaty that cannot be jettisoned is a ceiling on emissions. Without limits, they say, there will be no incentive for industry to innovate and find the cheapest, most effective ways to limit the human impact on the atmosphere, said David D. Doniger, the climate policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private environmental group.

      "If the United States had invented the catalytic converter but not passed clean air laws," he said, "it would still be sitting on a shelf and we`d still be choking in smog."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 10:25:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.011 ()



      December 4, 2003
      U.S. Rejects Iraqi Plan to Hold Census by Summer
      By JOEL BRINKLEY

      BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 3 — Iraqi census officials devised a detailed plan to count the country`s entire population next summer and prepare a voter roll that would open the way to national elections in September. But American officials say they rejected the idea, and the Iraqi Governing Council members say they never saw the plan to consider it.

      The practicality of national elections is now the subject of intense debate among Iraqi and American officials, who are trying to move forward on a plan to give Iraqis sovereignty next summer. As the American occupation officials rejected the plan to compile a voter roll rapidly, they also argued to the Governing Council that the lack of a voter roll meant national elections were impractical.

      The American plan for Iraqi sovereignty proposes instead a series of caucus-style, indirect elections.

      Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric, is calling for national elections next June, not the indirect balloting specified in the American plan for turning over control of the country. But American officials, and some Iraqis say the nation is not ready for national elections, in part because the logistics are too daunting.

      In October, Nuha Yousef, the census director, finished the plan for a quick census, which lays out the timetable in tabular form over several pages.

      "After processing the data, the most important thing is the election roll, and that would be available Sept. 1," she said. Full results, she added, would come in December.

      One American official acknowledged in an interview that American authorities had been aware of the quick census plan but rejected it.

      Informed of the proposal this week, several members of the Governing Council who advocated a direct national ballot next June 30 said they were upset that they had not seen it. The Census Bureau said it had delivered the plan to the Governing Council on Nov. 1, but apparently it was lost in the bureaucracy.

      "This could have changed things," said Dr. T. Hamid al-Bayati, a senior aide to Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Governing Council member who announced last week that Shiite religious leaders opposed the indirect elections. Perhaps, he and others suggested, some council members would have argued last month that the vote on self-government should be delayed until September when the voter roll became available.

      Another council member who favors national elections said: "I am irate. There is no doubt the situation would be different now, if we had known about this."

      Charles Healtly, a spokesman for the occupation authorities, said the Americans knew about the census proposal but decided against pursuing it.

      "Rushing into a census in this time frame with the security environment that we have would not give the result that people want," he said. "A lot of preparation work needs to be done for elections, and there is concern not to rush the process."

      Some Governing Council members say the Americans never told them about the census plan.

      Some Iraqis have said they wonder why American officials called for caucus elections in June, in part because a census could not be completed in less than a year, while at the same time rejecting a plan to produce a census more quickly.

      Louay Hagi, who oversees the Census Bureau in the Planning Ministry, said the proposal was not rushed. In an interview, he said his staff prepared a detailed timetable for a census that was stripped down from the 73 questions asked in the last census six years ago, to 12 basic demographic queries, enabling the work to be done much faster than the normal two-year time frame.

      As it had in the past, the bureau would use 400,000 school teachers to visit every household in Iraq on one day, June 30, said Ms. Yousef, the census director. The plan would cost $75 million, Mr. Hagi said, in part to buy 2,500 computers.

      "We sent the plan to the Governing Council on Nov. 1 and asked for an answer by Nov. 15," Mr. Hagi said. "We are still waiting for a response." He would not say to whom at the council the proposal was sent.

      Adel Abdel Mahdi, who attends every Governing Council meeting on behalf of Mr. Hakim, the council member, said he had never heard about the census proposal and "was surprised" to learn of it.

      A council member who does not favor elections, Ghazi Ajil al-Yawar, said, "This is bad," and continued: "You can`t have something like this as a secret. It is not a weapon." But he said he did not think knowledge of the plan would have changed the debate last month.

      As it turned out, on Nov. 15 the Governing Council announced it had agreed to the American plan for indirect elections to choose a "transitional assembly" in June, the first step in a progression to a new constitution and the election of a new Iraqi government by Dec. 31, 2005.

      The debate now is over whether the selection of a transitional assembly next summer should be by caucus-style balloting or a direct national election. Although last week, Ayatollah Sistani declared that he would insist on a direct vote, his aides have since softened that view. In an interview, Mr. Bayati said Mr. Hakim, who is serving as president of the Governing Council this month, was "ready to compromise."

      "We want a plan that will reflect the will of the Iraqi people," Mr. Bayati said, "and we could do that by using civic societies in every governorate — union leaders, judges, chiefs of tribes, religious figures and other well-known parties."

      An American official said "that sounds essentially like what we have been proposing, but as always the devil is in the details," such as who would choose those people.

      Last week the council established a nine-member committee to study the issue of how to choose the transitional assembly.

      Mr. Hagi said the quick census was still possible, but that now the results might not be ready until the middle of September.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 10:30:01
      Beitrag Nr. 10.012 ()
      December 4, 2003
      Kyoto Protocol in Peril

      The news from Moscow on Tuesday was not good — Russia, a senior official said, had decided not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Combined with President Bush`s decision two years ago to abandon the pact, Russia`s rejection would have effectively killed it. Then yesterday came word that it might have been a false alarm, a negotiating tactic to strengthen Moscow`s leverage in economic talks with the European Union, and that Russia was indeed "moving toward" ratification.

      Let us hope this is the case. The 1997 protocol has many flaws. It is, however, the only international response to the global warming problem thus far devised, and at the very least it provides a plausible framework for collective international action.

      One would never know this by listening to the Bush administration. Indeed, it can be argued that Russia would not be having second thoughts about the Kyoto accord had Mr. Bush himself decided not to bail out. Under the terms of the agreement, Russia — whose economy collapsed in the 1990`s, and whose global-warming emissions were thus well below the limits imposed by the treaty — would have profited handsomely from selling unused emissions credits to countries with booming economies. But the market for these credits, and Russia`s potential economic gains, diminished sharply when the United States, which would have been a major buyer of credits, pulled out.

      Meanwhile, the Bush administration continues to bad-mouth the treaty at every opportunity, the most recent example being an amazingly slippery piece of demagoguery by Paula Dobriansky, the under secretary of state for global affairs and the lead American delegate to a follow-up meeting on the Kyoto agreement that is now taking place in Milan. Writing in The Financial Times, Ms. Dobriansky begins by trashing the climate agreement as an "unrealistic and ever-tightening regulatory straitjacket." She then goes on to praise the Bush administration`s alternative — a mix of research and development into "breakthrough" technologies and voluntary emissions controls by American companies — as much the better plan.

      Ms. Dobriansky fails to mention two key points. The first is that the Bush administration`s program would allow greenhouse gases to keep building up, even though atmospheric concentrations are already alarmingly high and the name of the game is to stabilize and then reverse them. Mr. Bush`s approach would translate into an actual increase in emissions of 14 percent over the next decade.

      The second is that voluntarism will not work. While some companies seem willing to do something about global warming on their own, history has shown that the private sector as a whole will neither create new technologies nor, more to the point, put them into broad use without strong financial incentives. The Kyoto framework provides just such incentives because it combines mandatory limits on emissions with substantial, market-based rewards for operating more efficiently and then asks all companies to do their part. Ms. Dobriansky`s belief that companies will spend heavily on breakthrough technologies if their competitors are not doing likewise is sheer fantasy.

      The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 120 countries, including nearly all of the industrialized nations. Most have pledged to soldier on with their own efforts to reduce emissions, despite Mr. Bush`s negativism and regardless of what Russia ultimately does. But it will not be easy for these countries to make major investments in cleaner power plants, alternative fuels and all the other things that must be done to reduce emissions while the United States, in effect, gets a free ride. The battle against global warming will never be fully joined unless America joins it.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 10:37:06
      Beitrag Nr. 10.013 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 10:39:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.014 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 10:42:45
      Beitrag Nr. 10.015 ()

      About 650 elders from Parwan province meet to chose candidates for the constitutional assembly, or loya jirga, that will begin next week. More than 19,000 delegates gathered this week in eight Afghan cities to select representatives.
      washingtonpost.com
      A Brewing Constitutional Crisis
      Afghan Delegate Meetings Foreshadow Difficult Battles

      By Pamela Constable
      Washington Post Foreign Service
      Thursday, December 4, 2003; Page A01


      GARDEZ, Afghanistan -- More than 650 turbaned elders milled outside a U.N. voting tent Tuesday, clutching copies of a formal white document. Some fumbled with rarely worn spectacles as they peered at the tiny print; others frowned and jotted careful notes next to certain items.

      There was no time for tea and gossip. The nation was preparing to debate and adopt a new constitution after 25 years of war and lawlessness, and the elders, gathered in a schoolyard to elect candidates for the upcoming constitutional assembly, already knew what they wanted from the charter.

      "We want democracy, but only if it is according to Islamic law," asserted Nasrullah, 55, a farmer from Ghazni province, as a dozen men around him nodded vigorously. "In this document it is written that killing criminals is not allowed, but we need qisas to stop crime," he said, referring to the Islamic doctrine of eye-for-an-eye vengeance. "This is not the law of the Taliban. It is the law of God."

      The gathered elders agreed, in principle, that women should be able to participate in the assembly, provided they wear proper Islamic head coverings. But the lone woman candidate was nowhere to be seen. She spent the day segregated in a classroom, cut off from all the discussion, and she said no one had given her a copy of the proposed constitution.

      As more than 19,000 delegates gathered in eight cities this week to choose 500 members of the constitutional assembly, or loya jirga, the impassioned and often contradictory views of delegates foreshadowed a long, heated battle at the meeting, due to open Wednesday, and reflected the deep strains in a society pulled both toward a rural, religious past and a future as a modern nation.

      The Afghan government, headed by President Hamid Karzai, presented a draft constitution to the public one month ago. Under the U.N.-mandated political process, it must be ratified by the loya jirga before presidential elections can be held next year, to be followed by parliamentary voting.

      Officials said they tried to strike a balance between the demands of various political and religious groups, but the document drew criticism from conservative and progressive forces. Human rights groups said it failed to adequately protect women`s rights, judicial independence and religious minorities, while student groups protested that it did not guarantee the right to free higher education.

      Among the delegates and candidates from Ghazni and Parwan provinces, however, there was near-universal concern that the proposed constitution was too secular and modern, giving insufficient power to Islamic law and custom. Their comments suggested that the assembly could split deeply over the balance of political power and competing visions of modern and traditional Islam. In Kabul Stadium, where more than 500, mostly ethnic Tajik delegates from Parwan gathered inside a giant tent Monday, the mood was serious and attentive. Many delegates were veterans of guerrilla struggles against both communist and Taliban forces, and they appeared keenly appreciative of the historic chance to build a peaceful, politically modern nation.

      And yet the dominant sentiment in the tent was one of belligerent opposition to the proposed system of a strong executive and weaker parliament, which delegates said failed to ensure the rights of ethnic minorities and northern Afghan "freedom fighters" like themselves. The original constitution proposed by a commission included a prime minister, but Karzai had the position removed.

      "Our country`s future is at stake here, and we do not want the blood of the martyrs to be wasted," said Mahmad Yacoub, 47. "We need a parliamentary system with a strong prime minister so the rights of the poor and the freedom fighters will not be abused. Just as we struggled against Russia, so we will struggle in the loya jirga."

      The depth of ethnic feeling was also reflected in criticisms of other provisions -- that the national anthem be sung in Pashto, the Pashtun dialect, instead of Dari, the Tajik dialect, and that Mohammed Zahir Shah, 88, the former Afghan monarch, be named "father of the nation."

      Delegates from less secure neighboring provinces are traveling to Gardez, a well-protected provincial capital 65 miles south of Kabul, all week to vote. On Tuesday delegates from Ghazni, a conservative ethnic Pashtun region, joked and posed excitedly for photographs, but they also expressed suspicion that the proposed constitution might erode their religious laws, ethnic rights and cultural traditions.

      Mahmad Samander, a candidate and teacher from Ghazni, said he had read all 161 articles in the draft "very carefully" and had taken notes on dozens of items that he found contradictory to Islam. Like other delegates, he expressed concern at the references to international treaties, women`s rights and permission for minority Shiite Muslims to be judged according to Shiite legal precepts.

      "We want Islamic law, not international law. It is what so many of us fought and died for," he said, referring specifically to the Sunni strain of Islam, which is followed by 80 percent of Afghans. "If I am elected to the loya jirga, I will employ all my boldness as a former freedom fighter to eliminate or amend every un-Islamic item."

      Yet despite professing such conservative views, Samander and other delegates from Ghazni and Parwan argued strongly for the right of all Afghans to attend state universities at no cost, saying otherwise only the "children of the rich" would learn. The current draft does not guarantee free higher education.

      Afghan officials said the current draft reflects a moderate vision of Islam that is shared by most Afghans and will help the country`s emergence into the modern world, but that some interest groups are trying to fuel Muslim concerns for their own political gain.

      "The constitution says this is an Islamic country, but we must make sure we are talking about a modern Islam, one that is consistent with progress, with science, and with economic development," said Vice President Hedayat Amin Arsala in an interview in Kabul. "Some people want to use religion for political purposes, but constitutions cannot be made for groups or individuals. They are made for the entire nation."

      Officials from the United Nations, which is supervising the loya jirga, said this week that the selection of voters and candidates has gone smoothly, despite fears of intimidation or abuse by ethnic militias or other groups. This week, delegates from all 32 provinces are selecting candidates by secret ballot. Separate special elections are being held for women, nomads, refugees and other minority groups, with a limited number of seats reserved for each.

      In some rural provinces, though, few women have come forward as candidates and some have complained that officials discouraged them from participating. In Ghazni, the women`s election had to be held twice, U.N. officials said, and in Paktika, a province with high poverty and illiteracy rates, only one woman candidate registered, so officials selected a second to fill the provincial quota.

      On Tuesday, the sole female candidate to reach Gardez was Gulsum, 28, a health worker. She waited all day in the chilly classroom with her husband -- all women attending election events and the loya jirga itself must be escorted by a male relative, according to Afghan custom -- while the 600-plus male delegates mingled, chatted and ate lunch outside.

      "In my district, none of the women knew anything about the loya jirga, including me, and none of us was given a chance to read the constitution," Gulsum said, huddled beneath a blanket but smiling gamely as she waited for the outcome of her district. "I want to serve my people and help other Afghan women participate in public life, because they have never had the chance before."



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 10:51:28
      Beitrag Nr. 10.016 ()
      Talabani ist ein Mitglied des irakischen Verwaltungsrates. Um die Pressefreiheit zu schützen, schaffen wir sie ab, dann kann sie auch nicht mehr verletzt werden.

      washingtonpost.com
      Why Al-Arabiya Was Restricted


      By Jalal Talabani

      Thursday, December 4, 2003; Page A35


      BAGHDAD -- On Nov. 23, I took an important step in protecting the fledgling democracy we are nurturing in Iraq. On behalf of Iraq`s Governing Council, I temporarily banned the Arab satellite channel al-Arabiya from using satellite uplink facilities to transmit news reports from its Baghdad bureau.

      Since then I have heard a hundred variants on this question: "How can you claim to be promoting democracy while stifling a free press?"

      The answer is quite simple.

      We are not acting against legitimate and objective journalistic activities. We are taking steps to prevent psychological warfare and, more serious, incitement to murder. No country would do less.

      Further, while we have banned the station from broadcasting footage from Baghdad, we have not stopped it from continuing to gather news in Iraq.

      What sparked this action?

      Al-Arabiya`s conscious decision to break Iraqi law and the breaking of its own solemn promise not to promote violence in our country.

      On Nov. 16 al-Arabiya broadcast what it claimed was an audio tape by Saddam Hussein. Hussein`s horrible legacy, including responsibility for the needless deaths of millions of my countrymen, torture, executions and the virtual destruction of Iraq`s economy, is well known.

      And what did he say?

      He called for the extermination of the Governing Council and of the coalition forces that liberated us and are now helping us reconstruct our country.

      Hussein is a fugitive from justice, wanted for crimes of genocide. Yet al-Arabiya sees fit to allow him an open microphone to broadcast his calls for terrorism. Some may ask: Didn`t other media report on the same tape? Yes, other media -- including Arab satellite channels -- did report on the tape. But al-Arabiya aired the tape in its entirety, a full 17 minutes, while others broadcast only excerpts. And it was al-Arabiya that made the initial choice to air the tape; the rest of the media only followed.

      Hussein is seeking to stoke fear among Iraqis who embrace a democratic future. He calls for the murder of my colleagues in the Governing Council, people who are committed to a future democratic Iraq respectful of human rights. He wants coalition forces slaughtered because they dared depose him. More ominously, he attempts to incite violence in the name of religion, calling for "jihad" and thus encouraging al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to carry out suicide attacks against our friends in the Red Cross, the United Nations and among our coalition allies.

      That is not journalism; that is aiding, abetting and encouraging criminal terrorist activity.

      We, in turn, are exercising one of the few prerogatives we have: denying al-Arabiya use of our airwaves to broadcast reports from Baghdad. It is a measured, modest step -- one that can be reversed if al-Arabiya assures us it will no longer engage in actions that incite violence and terrorism.

      We have repeatedly warned al-Arabiya that in our judgment the station was engaging in provocative, irresponsible journalism.

      We heard promises of better behavior. I have even seen a letter from Waleed bin Ibrahim al-Ibrahim, chairman of al-Arabiya, claiming: "We do not broadcast any material that gives platform to any group or party, or that we consider pure propaganda for one certain party, or that we are not sure about its authenticity, or material which the viewer will consider pure propaganda for one certain party of any issue."

      How does broadcasting vitriol and threats from the head of the Baath Party, Hussein, qualify as anything but "pure propaganda for one certain party?" If his utterances are not propaganda, what are they?

      Al-Ibrahim goes on to claim that all editorial staff of al-Arabiya have been instructed "not to broadcast any material that incite violence in any form . . . or propagates . . . what we think [are] terrorist organizations."

      Clearly, this tape incites violence. Furthermore, does al-Arabiya wish to argue that Hussein`s regime and his loyalists do not constitute a "terrorist organization"?

      Al-Arabiya says its policy is not to broadcast material if "we are not sure about its authenticity." Even the CIA says it cannot verify whether the tape is genuine. Does al-Arabiya know something that these experts, with the world`s most sophisticated electronic equipment, don`t?

      By any measure, al-Arabiya has violated its own precepts. It has unquestionably violated Iraqi law, which has strict sanctions against broadcasting calls for violent actions against civil authorities.

      How would those who champion al-Arabiya`s press freedom react if, say, an American TV network broadcast a 17-minute diatribe from a psychopathic mass murderer calling for the death of President Bush?

      Would they applaud this as a sterling example of the First Amendment in practice? Or would they consider it a reckless, irresponsible act? Would U.S. authorities stand passively aside and take no action?

      What if the BBC broadcast a similar tape calling for the death of Prime Minister Tony Blair?

      The answer is simple: That wouldn`t happen, because Britain has clear laws, policies, traditions and standards regulating such threats.

      Why, then, is the Iraqi Governing Council censured for taking steps that amount to clear self-defense?

      Jalal Talabani is a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and secretary general of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 11:02:52
      Beitrag Nr. 10.017 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 11:04:31
      Beitrag Nr. 10.018 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 11:23:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.019 ()
      Fair and Balanced™ Cartoons
      Cartoon Archive
      136 New Cartoons Today, zur Freude mancher User heute 136 frische Satiren:
      http://www.flu-ent.com/graveyard/20031204__136toons.htm
      Aus gegebenen Anlass:
      IQ Warning: Each issue contains ALL of the day`s cartoons on a single printer-friendly page. If you have a slow mind i.e. regularly watch Fox News or read Bild it may take several minutes to get the jokes. Please be patient - its worth the wait.



      We do rejoice at the great news of the pulling of the
      Abercrombie & Fitch catalog from all A&F stores nationwide.
      Indications are that A&F is not going to carry those catalogs in the future in their stores.

      However, here are the reasons why we need to continue to
      keep Abercrombie & Fitch on our boycott list.
      http://www.americandecency.org/abercrombie.htm

      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 11:45:37
      Beitrag Nr. 10.020 ()


      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 12:01:21
      !
      Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an feedback@wallstreet-online.de
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 12:44:09
      Beitrag Nr. 10.022 ()
      Glückwunsch zur 10000!!!
      Dein Thread war und ist ein hervorragender Informationspool rund um die Themen Bush und US-Innen/Außenpolitik.
      Ich hoffe Du (und damit auch wir als Nutznießer) wirst noch lange Freude am Weiterführen des Thread haben.

      Gruß,
      St.H.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 12:58:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.023 ()
      @Inferno2002
      Heute besteht für mich doppelter Grund zur Freude.
      Erstmal möchte ich mich für die Glückwünsche bedanken.I. A. habe ich noch Lust weiterzumachen bis zum hoffentlich guten Ende im nächsten Jahr.
      Zweitens freue ich mich über Deine Wiederkehr mit Hindernissen.
      Ich hoffe nur, dass wir in Zukunft Deine militärischen Kenntnisse nicht wieder benötigen.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 13:15:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.024 ()
      U.S. Presses NATO to Step Up Role in Postwar Iraq
      Thu December 04, 2003 06:44 AM ET


      By Arshad Mohammed and John Chalmers
      BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States urged NATO on Thursday to consider a more prominent role in postwar Iraq, but its overture was soured by a row over European Union ambitions to set up a military planning cell independent of the alliance.

      It was the first time since the U.S.-led war -- over which NATO was plunged into one of the deepest crises in its 54-year history -- that Washington had openly pressed for alliance help in a country where its own costs and casualties are mounting.

      NATO currently provides behind-the-scenes support to a 23-nation division of troops led by Poland in a swathe of south-central Iraq, and 18 of the 26 current and future members of the alliance have a military presence in the country.

      "...the United States welcomes a greater NATO role in Iraq`s stabilization," Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a text prepared for delivery at a two-day meeting of alliance foreign ministers.

      "As we prepare for the Istanbul summit (of NATO next June) we urge the alliance to examine how it might do more to support peace and stability in Iraq, which every leader has acknowledged is critical to all of us," the text, obtained by Reuters, said.

      Diplomats say that until now, Washington had been careful not to force the debate on a more direct NATO involvement for fear of risking another bust-up with its allies.

      France and Germany, Europe`s fiercest critics of the war, had made it plain that they would insist on a heftier role for the United Nations, an invitation from a legitimate Iraqi body and a role independent of the U.S.-British occupying authority as their price for NATO involvement.

      But with the prospect of a handover of sovereignty to Iraqis next year, there has been more talk of a robust role for NATO.

      Earlier this week Spain proposed that NATO take command of the Polish-led division, and diplomats said Italy was also favorable to the idea.

      "I think that it is too early to say that but we should keep in mind the fact that most of the NATO member states are present in Iraq," Polish Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz told reporters on his arrival at the alliance`s headquarters.

      "(But) we believe that it would be wise if NATO engages itself, involves itself, deeper in the future."

      Before the ministerial conference got under way, Turkey offered three helicopters for NATO`s peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, filling a gap that had begun to undermine the credibility of plans to expand the mission beyond Kabul.

      TENSION OVER EU PLANS

      But clouding the meeting was stubborn tension over tentative proposals -- put forward by Britain, France and Germany last week -- on defense arrangements for an enlarged EU.

      These included a plan, albeit watered down by London, to set up a military planning capability for EU peacekeeping and crisis management operations, which Washington had blasted only six weeks ago as "the most serious threat" to NATO`s future.

      Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is not normally shy about speaking bluntly to allies, side-stepped a blazing row over the issue at a NATO meeting on Monday.

      But Powell made it clear that Washington was not backing down over the EU project, which is seen by some as a French-inspired drive to subvert NATO and curb U.S. influence.

      "The United States cannot accept independent EU structures that duplicate existing NATO capabilities," he said in his prepared speech.

      German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer told reporters that he did not share Washington`s concerns about duplicating NATO planning capabilities which, under an agreement between the two institutions, the EU can borrow from the alliance.

      "We will need to coordinate on a European level," he said.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 13:21:47
      Beitrag Nr. 10.025 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq…
      THE WORLD



      Iraqi Council Leader Pushes for Direct Vote
      The first cleric to head panel has joined other Shiites in calling for such assembly elections. Coalition, parties agree to a paramilitary force.
      By Alissa J. Rubin and Patrick J. McDonnell
      Times Staff Writers

      December 4, 2003

      BAGHDAD — Shiite Muslim cleric Abdelaziz Hakim used his maiden news conference Wednesday as Iraqi Governing Council president to push for direct elections to select a national assembly, despite deep U.S. doubts about the proposal.

      "A provisional national assembly should be elected by the Iraqi people, and this assembly should choose the government," said Hakim, the first cleric to hold the rotating presidency of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council.

      The council is in the midst of a heated debate over how to choose the assembly, which is to take office in June and help govern Iraq for the next couple of years as it drafts a new constitution and prepares to elect a permanent government.

      The United States has proposed using provincial caucuses for selecting assembly members, but Shiite religious leaders, including Hakim, are pressing hard for direct elections because Shiites make up 60% of Iraq`s population and are likely to dominate the body.

      A number of council members, especially those who represent minority groups, believe that the country is not ready for elections because it lacks voter rolls and security.

      In the latest effort to boost security, the Governing Council and the U.S.-led occupation administration have agreed to form a paramilitary force made up of members of militias attached to Iraq`s five major political parties.

      The paramilitary force would act mainly as a rapid-response team dedicated initially to tracking down and apprehending insurgents. Unlike other Iraqi armed forces — including the army, the police and the Civil Defense Corps, most of whom are receiving basic training from the American military — this group would consist of already well-trained militiamen.

      Officials also hope that the militiamen, with their intimate knowledge of Iraqi society, would be better at recognizing any "foreign fighters" contributing to instability in the country.

      The paramilitary force would comprise fighters from militias affiliated with the Kurdish Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi`s Iraqi National Congress, the Iraqi National Accord, and Hakim`s Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

      Efforts to form a paramilitary force had stalled for months because the five parties had been reluctant to agree to U.S. demands that their militias be melded into a single organization under Iraqi — rather than party — command.

      U.S. officials have feared that militia members would gather information on one another instead of focusing on defeating insurgents.

      "They cannot be serving to represent political parties, or a particular militia," said Dan Senor, chief spokesman for L. Paul Bremer III, head of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, the occupation administration.

      Initially, the force will have about 1,000 members and will be part of the Civil Defense Corps, under the aegis of the Interior Ministry.

      It will coordinate with coalition forces, "but eventually the coalition will fade away and it will be an Iraqi operation," said an official close to the CPA.

      In other developments Wednesday, Hakim announced that the Governing Council will move ahead with the establishment of a human rights court to try those accused of abuses under Saddam Hussein`s regime.

      Other Governing Council members said the court would try some of the most wanted members of Hussein`s government being held by the U.S., as well as other high-ranking Baath Party members in custody.

      Hakim, 53, who for years collected data on human rights abuses in Iraq, spent the last 20 years in Iran. He is the brother of Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr Hakim, who was killed in an August mosque blast in the city of Najaf.

      Meanwhile Wednesday, the U.S. Army defended its assertion that 54 insurgents were killed Sunday during fierce battles in Samarra, north of Baghdad.

      "I trust the reports of my soldiers," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said at a Baghdad briefing. "There`s no reason to doubt what these soldiers saw. There`s no reason to doubt what the soldiers reported."

      Hospital officials in Samarra put the death toll closer to eight and the number of wounded at more than 50. Residents said those killed included noncombatants, among them an elderly Iranian pilgrim.

      The U.S. identified all of those killed as enemy fighters. During the battle, the Army said, many insurgents donned head scarves and clothing identified with the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group loyal to Hussein.

      U.S. commanders speculated that many slain fighters` bodies were removed by comrades or sympathizers. "I can`t imagine why the enemy would want to bring a dead body to a hospital," Kimmitt said.

      In other developments, Kimmitt said, coalition forces in Baghdad detained a top aide to Muqtader Sadr, a firebrand Shiite cleric who has openly espoused anti-U.S. views. Amar Yasseri, who heads operations for Sadr in the capital`s Sadr City neighborhood, was "believed responsible" for an Oct. 9 ambush in the slum that left two U.S. soldiers dead.

      Also Wednesday, 82nd Airborne Division troops in the city of Fallouja detained a former Iraqi general, Daham Mahmedi, the military said. He is suspected of directing anti-U.S. activities in Fallouja, the military said.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 13:24:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.026 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-me-terr…
      THE NATION



      U.S. Court Rules Against Parts of Anti-Terror Law
      Federal prosecutors` interpretation of 1996 act, a major tool of the Justice Department, is unconstitutional, 9th Circuit panel finds.
      By Henry Weinstein
      Times Staff Writer

      December 4, 2003

      The Bush administration`s interpretation of sections of the 1996 federal anti-terrorism law violates the Constitution, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

      The 2-1 decision affects portions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 that have been a major tool in the efforts by U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft to combat terrorism. The Justice Department had no comment on the ruling but is expected to appeal.

      The central problem, appeals court judges Harry Pregerson and Sidney Thomas wrote, is that federal prosecutors have interpreted the law to allow a person to be charged with giving aid to a terrorist group even if there is no evidence that the defendant knew about the group`s actions or even that the government had labeled it a terrorist organization.

      In addition, the judges said, the provisions of the law barring "material support" to terrorist organizations are too vague and risk imposing liability on "moral innocents."

      To convict a defendant, "the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew that the organization was designated as a foreign terrorist organization or that the accused knew of the organization`s unlawful activities," Pregerson wrote.

      The case involved individuals and groups who supported two organizations that the U.S. government considers terrorist — the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which opposes the Turkish government, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which opposes the Sri Lankan government.

      Both organizations were designated as terrorist groups by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1997. However, both groups also engage in other advocacy work on behalf of ethnic Kurds and Tamils. The U.S. supporters of the two groups who challenged the law argued that the assistance they provided was for humanitarian purposes.

      The 1996 law states that people may be prosecuted if they "knowingly" provide material support to a terrorist group. When the law was being considered in the Senate, Pregerson noted, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emphasized that "intent requirement."

      "I am convinced that we have crafted a narrow but effective designation provision … while safeguarding the freedom to associate, which none of us would willingly give up," Hatch said.

      The Justice Department, however, has interpreted the "knowingly" language in the law to mean a person can be prosecuted so long as he knows the identity of the group to which he has given money. The person need not know about the group`s designation as terrorist or about its violent activities, the government says.

      Under that interpretation, Pregerson said, "a person who simply sends a check to a school or orphanage" run by the Tamil Tigers could be convicted "even if that individual is not aware of … any unlawful activities" by the group.

      "Or, according to the government`s interpretation" of the statute, Pregerson said, "a woman who buys cookies from a bake sale outside of her grocery store to support displaced Kurdish refugees to find new homes could be held liable so long as the bake sale had a sign that the sale was sponsored by the PKK."

      The dissenting member of the appeals court panel, Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson, said that the ruling would allow U.S. supporters of groups designated as terrorist to escape prosecution by pleading ignorance.

      "No one disputes that the PKK and the LTTE are terrorist organizations," Rawlinson wrote. "The record in this case reflects that the PKK`s terrorist activities have resulted in the death of over 22,000 individuals, primarily bombings," she said, adding that the Tamil Tigers have "a similar history, engaging in bombings, gun battles, assassinations and machete attacks, causing widespread death and destruction."

      "Simply stated," Rawlinson concluded, "the plaintiffs sought and secured a ruling that so long as they profess an intent to further only the legitimate goals of the terrorist organizations, their material support of these organizations should escape scrutiny or consequence."

      The court majority also said the law`s prohibition against providing "personnel" or "training" to a terrorist group is unconstitutionally vague. Pregerson emphasized that those terms could include constitutionally protected 1st Amendment activity, such as training someone to petition the United Nations or writing literature on the grievances of the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

      Wednesday`s decision means that the law "cast an unconstitutionally broad net over innocent persons," said Washington attorney David Cole of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

      "This decision will mitigate the substantial chilling effect that this statute has cast over those who seek to provide humanitarian aid to conflict-ridden areas," said Cole, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown Law School. The plaintiffs said that they had ceased providing aid to the PKK or the LTTE because they feared prosecution under the law.

      The ruling upheld a decision made two years ago by U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins in Los Angeles. The appeals court ruling immediately affects cases in California and eight other Western states. But if it stands it could affect a number of other cases. The law was used, for example, to prosecute Mukhtar al-Bakri, a Yemeni American man who was sentenced to 10 years in prison by a federal judge in Buffalo, N.Y., on Wednesday for providing "material support" to Al Qaeda by providing "personnel."

      Had the court`s ruling been in effect in New York, it probably would have prevented that prosecution, Cole said.

      Cole has filed a related case, now pending before a federal trial judge in Los Angeles, challenging similar provisions in the USA Patriot Act. That case is scheduled to be heard later this month.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 13:28:01
      Beitrag Nr. 10.027 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shaiken…
      COMMENTARY



      Grocery Strike Animates Unions
      By Harley Shaiken
      Harley Shaiken is a UC Berkeley professor specializing in labor and the global economy.

      December 4, 2003

      The 70,000 striking grocery workers received a much-needed morale boost when the Teamsters union announced it would honor their picket lines. But the Teamster action has an even broader significance: It suggests a return to labor`s roots and the rebirth of labor solidarity.

      Though it isn`t unprecedented to have one union respect the strike of another, union solidarity hasn`t been seen on this scale for quite a while. In the midst of a knock-down, drag-out economic struggle, the cooperation between these two unions could breathe new life into organized labor and transform the way strikes are waged.

      Even before the Teamsters decision, the strike was buoyed by strong public support. To start, grocery workers are neither distant or anonymous. They are friends and neighbors, familiar faces, people you see every time you stop by a market. They are people the public can identify with. Close to two-thirds are women — many single mothers — and more than a third are Latino, Asian or African American. They aren`t getting rich on the job; at an average wage of $12 to $14 per hour and 30 hours of work per week, many are barely getting by. They are on the picket lines because they are fighting for their health-care coverage — a demand that is also pretty easy to identify with.

      Unions then built on this support in a way that reminds us labor is still a movement. Miguel Contreras, head of the Los Angeles Central Labor Council, has pulled together people from different religious, ethnic and community organizations.

      Religious groups ranging from Baptists to Muslims have thrown in their support, initiating a week of walking prayer that brought religious leaders to the picket lines. The International Longshore Workers Union pulled 3,000 members off the San Pedro docks to hold a union meeting in front of an Albertson`s store. Unionized janitors staged a three-day hunger strike over Thanksgiving, and the entertainment unions also held rallies.

      All of this support was important, but it was the Teamster decision to honor these picket lines that clearly upped the ante. More than 8,000 Teamsters have abandoned 10 state-of-the-art distribution centers and delivery routes to 860 stores throughout Southern California, choking far-flung supply lines. The supermarket chains responded by bringing in replacement workers, but it is not so very easy to replace thousands of skilled workers overnight. The replacements will probably get more effective if the strike continues long enough, but valued customers are getting comfortable shopping elsewhere — a long-term disaster for businesses that depend on loyalty and service.

      Why have the Teamsters waded into the fray? They understand that if health-care coverage is sacrificed in these negotiations, the chains will demand the same or more from them in their own contract talks two years down the road. The choice was to join the grocery clerks in support of the picket line today or join the clerks with less health coverage in two years.

      Should the rest of us care? Absolutely. If unionized workers are stripped of effective health coverage today, union and nonunion employers alike will have a powerful incentive to cut costs in the same way tomorrow, leaving many more workers uninsured and vulnerable. In effect, the low road to competitiveness could become a superhighway.

      The threat here is not one of the store moving to Mexico or China but rather of a Wal-Mart moving in down the block. The danger, although hardly insurmountable, is real. If the unions lose, it unravels the American dream. The reward for larger size and greater efficiency becomes lower wages and fewer benefits. (That might benefit the corporation next quarter, but it is hardly the basis for economic success in the long run.)



      The Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers union and their allies have given new life to the oldest of labor slogans: "An injury to one is an injury to all." The ultimate beneficiary could well be the rest of us.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 13:30:08
      Beitrag Nr. 10.028 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-annan4d…
      COMMENTARY





      Search for a New U.N. Role
      The organization has been under a microscope since the U.S. defied it on Iraq.
      By Kofi A. Annan
      Kofi A. Annan is secretary-general of the United Nations.

      December 4, 2003

      We have come to a decisive moment in history. The great threat of nuclear confrontation between rival superpowers is now behind us. But a new and diverse constellation of threats has arisen in its place. We need to look again at the machinery of international relations. Is it up to these new challenges? If not, how does it need to be changed?

      The events of the last year have exposed deep divisions among members of the United Nations on fundamental questions of policy and principle. How can we best protect ourselves against international terrorism and halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction? When is the use of force permissible — and who should decide? Does it have to be each state for itself, or will we be safer working together? Is "preventive war" sometimes justified, or is it simply aggression under another name? And, in a world that has become "unipolar," what role should the United Nations play?

      These new debates come on top of earlier ones that arose in the 1990s. Is state sovereignty an absolute and immutable principle, or does our understanding of it need to evolve? To what extent is it the international community`s responsibility to prevent or resolve conflicts within states (as opposed to wars between them) — particularly when they involve genocide, "ethnic cleansing" or other extreme violations of human rights?

      These questions cannot be left unanswered. Yet they are not the only questions. And for many people they may not even be the most urgent.

      In fact, to many people in the world today, especially in poor countries, the risk of being attacked by terrorists or with weapons of mass destruction, or even of falling prey to genocide, must seem relatively remote compared to the so-called "soft" threats — the ever-present dangers of extreme poverty and hunger, unsafe drinking water, environmental degradation and endemic or infectious disease.

      Let`s not imagine that these things are unconnected with peace and security, or that we can afford to ignore them until the "hard threats" have been sorted out. We should have learned by now that a world of glaring inequality — between countries and within them — where many millions of people endure brutal oppression and extreme misery is never going to be a fully safe world, even for its most privileged inhabitants.

      Today, the common ground we used to stand on no longer seems solid. In seeking new common ground for our collective efforts, we need to consider whether the United Nations itself is well suited to the challenges ahead.

      During the last year, the United Nations has been held under a microscope. In an atmosphere of acrimony surrounding the crisis in Iraq, the importance and, indeed, the relevance of the institution have in some quarters been called into question. This was especially true at the time of the United States decision to go to war in Iraq without the explicit approval of the Security Council.

      I know that over the years our record has been far from perfect. The Security Council has been unable to prevent horrendous atrocities — the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, genocide in Rwanda. But, to paraphrase Henry Cabot Lodge, the United Nations may not have brought us to heaven but it played a vital role in saving us from hell.

      Peace was brought to many lands through the U.N. — Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mozambique. We helped protect against a drift toward nuclear holocaust, including during the Cuban missile crisis. We served as a vehicle for action against North Korea, against Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. We`ve brought relief to millions affected by fighting, famine and floods, and we have helped reduce child mortality and eradicate smallpox. We were critical in helping the developing world throw off the yoke of colonialism.

      To my mind, recent events have only underlined the need for the United Nations. That`s why I convened a panel, chaired by former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun of Thailand, to examine the future of our organization. The panel holds its first meeting this weekend.

      Its role is threefold: to analyze current and future threats to peace and security; to assess the contribution that collective action can make in meeting these threats; and to recommend the changes needed to make the United Nations a legitimate and effective instrument for a collective response. How, in particular, can the United Nations "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace," which is one of its purposes, as defined in Article I of its charter? I hope the panel will complete its report by autumn 2004.

      If it does its work well, history may yet remember the current crisis as a great opportunity that wise men and women used to strengthen the mechanisms of international cooperation and adapt them to the needs of the new century.
      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 13:45:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.029 ()

      Gavin Newsom (right) and former Vice President Al Gore, who endorses him, chat at an event in S.F
      In San Francisco könnte das erste Mal in den USA am 9.12. a green zum Bürgermeister gewählt werden, wobei der Grüne (Gonzales)reelle Chancen hat.
      Der andere(Newsom) ist Demokrat.


      Final debate polite, pointed
      Newsom, Gonzalez focus on issues
      John Wildermuth, Katia Hetter, Chronicle Political Writers
      Wednesday, December 3, 2003
      ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle

      URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/03/MNG373ES291.DTL



      Matt Gonzalez and Gavin Newsom jousted over homelessness, Willie Brown and the future of San Francisco Tuesday night in a debate that opened the final weeklong sprint to the Dec. 9 mayor`s election.

      Each of the two local supervisors spent the hour trying to convince a television and radio audience that he and he alone is best able to lead the way in solving the city`s well-publicized problems.

      There are real differences between the two candidates, Newsom said.

      "It`s time to unite around real solutions to real problems,`` he said. "We see the world with different eyes. Mine are not exclusively ideological.``

      Change is important, but San Francisco also has to save the good things it already has, Gonzalez said.

      "We have great values, the value of diversity, great working-class values, `` he said. "The next mayor will have the challenge of protecting those values in the face of hard economic times.``

      Time and again, Gonzalez tried to tie Newsom to outgoing Mayor Brown, suggesting that Newsom has continually supported the mayor and that there can`t be any real change without a total break with Brown`s administration.

      The city is worse off than when Brown became mayor eight years ago, he said.

      "In terms of ethics in our society . . . how people get contracts and how business is done at City Hall, this is not an administration anyone should point to as a model for the future,`` Gonzalez said.

      Newsom hastily ducked any assessment of Brown, who appointed him to the Board of Supervisors.

      "I`m not going to explain away the past; I`m not going to argue for the present,`` he said. "We`re putting together a plan for the future. I`m my own person, a different person.``

      Newsom also took a none-too-veiled jab at Gonzalez`s position as a leader of the Green Party.

      "I`m not interested in moving away from the Brown machine to create a Green machine,`` he said.

      While the debate was more polite and low-key than the candidates` raucous showdown at a Western Addition church last month, both Gonzalez and Newsom used plenty of sharp elbows.

      Care Not Cash addressed

      Newsom argued that Gonzalez`s opposition to the controversial Care Not Cash homelessness plan went against the will of the city`s voters and showed that the progressive supervisor didn`t really care about people living on the street.

      "When are you going to stop rejecting other people`s ideas?`` asked Newsom, who suggested that Gonzalez believed that the 60 percent of the voters who backed Care Not Cash didn`t know what they were doing.

      "We need to recognize we`re not helping anyone by stepping over people on a sidewalk,`` he said. "That`s not compassion. I`m not interested in explaining away every problem.``

      Care Not Cash made promises that couldn`t be kept, Gonzalez said.

      "It could not be implemented the way it was sold to the voters,`` he added.

      Gonzalez called for an end to the current homeless shelters, which he dismissed as a "cot in a room." The shelters should be more like medical clinics, where the homeless could get the help they needed.

      Gonzalez, who is backed by the city`s tenant groups, asked why Newsom had evicted an elderly women from her apartment years ago so he could move in.

      The women ultimately found an apartment next door, and there was no animosity involved, Newsom said.

      "To suggest I don`t care about tenants is wrong,`` he said. "I`m not apologizing for what was done because it was done appropriately.``

      Newsom said that while he supports rent control, "I also support property rights.``

      The candidates also tussled over the question of affordable housing.

      Affordable housing an issue

      While housing is needed at all levels, the city needs to find homes for the working middle class, the nurses, teachers and firefighters with family incomes of $70,000 to $80,000, Newsom said.

      Building that type of housing brings problems with it, Gonzalez countered,

      since those new plans for housing call for fewer controls on development in the city.

      The debate probably didn`t change many minds among the partisan supporters in the audience at the CBS TV-5 studios.

      Mollie Schneider, a paralegal at an environmental law firm, knew going in that she was voting for Gonzalez.

      "I like how he has collected a lot less money, and I like his environmental policies,`` she said.

      The debate just made the choice even clearer, she said.

      "I thought it was great,`` she said. "Matt was a very engaging speaker. He was able to speak about the issues. Gavin Newsom just glossed over the issues."

      Architect Michael Kurtzman also had made his choice early.

      "I`m voting for Newsom," he said on his way into the debate. "I don`t know much about Gonzalez so I wanted to hear what he had to say."

      Newsom wasn`t willing to pick a winner in the debate.

      "I leave that to more objective minds,`` he said. "I`m pleased. We were able to get our message out. My wife thinks that I did great, and I usually agree with her.``

      E-mail the writers at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com and khetter@sfchronicle.com.

      ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


      Supervisors Matt Gonzalez, right, and Gavin Newsom greet each other before the final mayoral debate
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 14:11:48
      Beitrag Nr. 10.030 ()
      Wie man Wirtschaftsdaten amerikanisch aufbereitet. Die deutschen Überschriften sind alle negativ, hier wird das Positive in den Vordergrund gestellt.

      German Unemployment Falls, Orders Gain, as Recovery Strengthens
      Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- German unemployment fell for a third month in November and new orders to the manufacturing industry increased the previous month, evidence a recovery in Europe`s biggest economy is gaining strength this quarter.

      The number of people out of work fell by 18,000 from October to 4.36 million, adjusted for seasonal swings, the Federal Labor Office said in Nuremberg. Factory orders increased 2 percent in October from September, the Economics and Labor Ministry said in Berlin, more than twice the increase economists had forecast.

      German business confidence rose to the highest in more than three years last month as a global recovery boosted demand for goods such as Porsche AG`s sports cars and Siemens AG`s mobile phones. The U.S. economy, where 10 percent of German exports go, expanded at the fastest pace since 1984 in the third quarter.

      ``Companies with strong exports can hope for a better time,`` said Wolfgang Bauer, chief financial officer of Dyckerhoff AG, Germany`s second-largest cement maker. ``We expect a clear improvement in our 2004 results.``

      Both the unemployment and orders reports indicate that demand within Germany may be starting to strengthen. Growth of 0.2 percent in the third quarter came solely from export demand, raising concern the rising euro might choke a recovery. The euro rose to a record of $1.2129 yesterday.

      Consumer Demand

      Orders placed by German companies rose 2.7 percent in October from September, outpacing a 1.3 percent gain in export orders, the ministry report showed. Retail sales rose in October, the Federal Statistics Office said Tuesday, and consumer confidence gained as concern about unemployment declined.

      ``There has been a slight build-up of staff in 2003 and this will continue in 2004,`` said Helmut Meyer, chief financial officer of Deutz AG, a maker of diesel engines for commercial vehicles and ships. ``Our business is relatively stable despite three difficult years in the economy.``

      European bonds fell, with the yield on the benchmark 10 percent German government bond rising 3 basis points from yesterday to 4.47 percent. The benchmark DAX 30 stock index was little changed at 3880.12 at 12:34 p.m. in Frankfurt, after rising to the highest this year earlier today.

      Satisfied that interest rates at the lowest since at least 1946 are fostering a recovery across the region, the European Central Bank will leave borrowing costs unchanged at today`s meeting, all but one of 44 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News said. The ECB`s benchmark rate stands at 2 percent.

      Services Growth

      In the $8.5 trillion economy of the dozen nations sharing the euro, destination for more than half of Germany`s exports, manufacturing expanded the most since February 2001 and service industries grew last month at the fastest pace since October 2000. Business and consumer confidence also rose.

      The German economy emerged from recession in the third quarter, helped by the biggest increase in exports in almost three years, the Federal Statistics Office said last month. Growth of 0.2 percent was half the rate for the euro region.

      Porsche increased net income in the fiscal year by a fifth on demand for the Cayenne sport-utility vehicle. Siemens last month raised its forecast for global mobile-phone sales for the second time in three months. Deutz has said it will boost profit next year as it wins more orders in China, which accounts for about 10 percent of the company`s total sales.

      The euro`s increase is clouding the outlook for exporters. Germany`s BGA group, representing 135,000 exporters and wholesalers, said it may need to trim its forecast for 4.5 percent export growth if the euro extends its gains.

      `Fire Raging`

      Schering AG Chief Executive Officer Hubertus Erlen said in an interview with Bloomberg News yesterday the drugmaker may cut more jobs next year as the stronger currency erodes sales.

      ``There`s a fire raging on the currency front and those who haven`t hedged are getting burned,`` said Porsche Chief Executive Officer Wendelin Wiedeking yesterday.

      To spur hiring and consumer demand and make growth less dependent on exports, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder plans to cut non-wage labor costs such as contributions to state health and pensions funds, which have risen to the highest in Europe after Belgium and Hungary. Other plans include reductions in jobless benefits and increasing subsidies for low paid work.

      A mediation committee made up of both houses of parliament is currently seeking a compromise on these proposals, as well as on Schroeder`s plans to bring forward to next year $19 billion in income-tax cuts in a bid to spur economic growth.

      Germany`s jobless rate stayed at a seven-month low of 10.5 percent last month. Calculated according to European Union standards, the rate was unchanged at 9.3 percent. October`s rate was the third highest in the EU after Spain and France and compared with a U.S. rate of 6 percent.

      Last Updated: December 4, 2003 06:44 EST
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 14:53:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10.031 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 20:45:12
      Beitrag Nr. 10.032 ()
      Story location: http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breakin…

      White House Changes Story on Bush Plane Incident




      Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:44 p.m. ET

      By Randall Mikkelsen

      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In another White House correction, the Bush administration on Wednesday changed its story of a British Airways pilot`s spotting of Air Force One during the president`s stealth trip to Iraq last week.

      The original story -- which held that the airline`s pilot had talked to Air Force One and that he kept the secret of President Bush`s Thanksgiving Day flight to Baghdad -- had been told by White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett to reporters as he sought to portray the drama of Bush`s trip.

      But after British Airways denied such a conversation took place, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Wednesday the airline`s pilot never contacted Air Force One. "The conversation was between the British Airways plane and the London control tower," McClellan said.

      It was also the London control tower, not an Air Force One pilot as in the original story, that misidentified Air Force One as a much smaller "Gulfstream 5" aircraft, McClellan said.

      He said Air Force One pilots overheard the conversation while flying over the west coast of England, and the British Airways plane could be identified by its call sign when it spoke to the tower.

      McClellan declined to say whether Air Force One had sent a false electronic identification or whether controllers were in on the deception.

      British Airways said it could not confirm the new account.

      White House officials have said the elaborate secrecy surrounding the trip was needed to ensure Bush`s security in Iraq, but some critics accused the administration of dramatizing the trip for political purposes.

      CHANGE OF STORY

      McClellan explained the change in the White House story by saying, "I don`t think everybody was clear on exactly how that conversation happened."

      The White House has come under criticism for backtracking on its account of other high profile events.

      In October it conceded it had helped with a large "Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier where Bush announced in May that major fighting had ended in Iraq.

      Bush had initially said his advance team did not put up the banner, whose message critics viewed as premature given continued attacks on occupying forces in Iraq.

      Also, the White House had initially said Bush needed to fly to the carrier on a jet because the vessel would be hundreds of miles offshore. But the administration later acknowledged that Bush decided on flying by jet, even through the carrier had ended up within easy helicopter range, because he wanted to share in the pilots` experience.

      British Airways said it could not confirm the White House`s new version of the Air Force One story. "We`ve had no reports from any of our pilots with regard to Air Force One," airline spokeswoman Honor Verrier said.

      Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 20:47:30
      Beitrag Nr. 10.033 ()
      Green candidate Nader explores bid for White House
      By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
      04 December 2003


      Ralph Nader, the nemesis of the former vice-president Al Gore in the 2000 American presidential election, is exploring another bid for the White House for the Green Party, further complicating the difficult task facing the Democrats next year.

      Associates of the long-time consumer rights advocate and establishment gadfly confirmed yesterday he was raising money for an exploratory bid, and that a Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee had been set up three months ago.

      Theresa Amato, a committee director who served as national Nader campaign manager in 2000, said: "We`re using it to test the waters." In addition a website, naderexplore04.org, is being launched, before a decision early next year.

      The possible entry of Mr Nader is a nightmare for the Democrats, who are still smarting from their experience of three years ago when Mr Gore was defeated by George Bush despite winning a 537,000 vote plurality in the popular vote. The 2.8 million votes, about 2.7 per cent of the total cast, won by Mr Nader only rubbed salt into those raw wounds.

      The story was the same in New Hampshire, where Mr Nader collected more than 22,000 votes, three times the winning margin of Mr Bush. Had the Democrats carried either of those two states, Mr Gore would today be in the White House.

      This time, there would seem less reason for a Nader candidacy. Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has emerged as the frontrunner for the nomination, appeals to many of the angry activists who might otherwise be tempted to vote Green, tapping into this reservoir of votes by using the internet.

      Moreover another candidate, the Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, espouses many of the highly liberal social and economic positions held by Mr Nader. Indeed, Mr Nader has often spoken approvingly of Mr Kucinich.

      But Mr Kucinich has no hope of victory, and Mr Nader is as famous for his obstinacy as for his idealism. The 2000 election proved that when he feels it is his duty to run, he will be not be swayed by Democratic charges of playing the spoiler or by the argument that he has no chance of winning.

      With one exception, the nine declared Democratic candidates have avoided comment on a possible Nader campaign. But a spokesman for Joe Lieberman, who as Mr Gore`s running mate felt his impact most keenly, tartly noted that "if history is any guide, the best way voters can get rid of George W Bush is by supporting the Democratic candidate."

      Despite an avalanche of abuse from Democrats after the 2000 election outcome, Mr Nader was as unrepentant then as now, arguing that "the only person who could defeat Al Gore was Al Gore himself." Diehard Greens also dismiss accusations that by siphoning off environmentalist votes that would otherwise have gone to Mr Gore, Mr Nader ensured the election of a president beholden to big business and famously unsympathetic to Green causes. Nader supporters say that mainstream Democrats are no less compromised by a corrupt system than their Republican opponents.

      But this very consideration, that the Washington-based Democratic establishment no longer represents the party at large, has fuelled the emergence Mr Dean as favourite. He has a large lead in the key state of New Hampshire which holds the first primary on 27 January, and a fundraising machine which eclipses those of his rivals.

      Despite his opponents` best efforts and the candidate`s own stumbles, the Dean campaign rolls on. He is currently under assault for steps he took last years to seal some of his governor`s papers for 10 years. But that seems to be having as little impact as the brouhaha when Mr Dean declared he was out to win the votes of southerners in pickup trucks with Confederate flags - a constituency that will never rally to Mr Nader.

      Mr Gore himself meanwhile is this week refighting the left`s internal battles of 2000 in San Francisco. Stepping into the liberal city`s hardfought mayor`s election, Mr Gore has endorsed a moderate Democrat facing a tough run-off contest against the Green Party contender Matt Gonzalez.
      4 December 2003 20:45


      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 20:52:53
      Beitrag Nr. 10.034 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 21:02:37
      Beitrag Nr. 10.035 ()
      Posted 12/3/2003 9:34 AM
      Poll: More people don`t believe Iraq war reduced terror threat
      WASHINGTON (AP) — A growing number of Americans, seven in 10, doesn`t think the war in Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism, according to a poll out Wednesday.
      Fewer than half felt that way in April, during the war. President Bush and members of his administration frequently say the efforts in Iraq are central to winning the war on terror.

      The poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland also found strong support, 71%, for the United Nations to take the lead in helping establish a stable government in Iraq. That`s up from half who felt that way in April.

      Despite apparent uneasiness with this country`s military presence in Iraq, two-thirds said they don`t think U.S. troops should withdraw until there is a stable government. That`s down 14 points from April, however.

      That Iraqi government wouldn`t have to be friendly to the United States, in their view. Four in five agreed that Iraqis should be able to choose their own government, even if that government is unfriendly to the United States.

      The poll of 712 people was conducted by Knowledge Networks from Nov. 21-30 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

      Falls jemand im Thread vorher die beiden nicht erkannt hat, die mit weniger Haaren, das sind die Bush Brothers!
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.12.03 23:58:01
      Beitrag Nr. 10.036 ()
      Published on Thursday, December 4, 2003 by Newsday / Long Island, NY
      Put the Blame on Cheney for US Mess in Iraq
      by James Klurfeld

      This isn`t how Papa Bush and the handlers thought it would work out. Not when they put solid Dick Cheney in charge of the kid`s government.

      With all of his experience in government, from White House chief of staff to congressional leader to secretary of defense, Cheney was the one who would avoid the big mistakes, who would make up for Junior`s lack of experience.

      And yet President George W. Bush is going into his re-election year with one huge mess on his hands in Iraq. It isn`t only that much of the world is bewildered if not downright scared at the administration`s arrogant unilateralism; it`s that a good segment of the American people have begun to question the president`s judgment and credibility because of how Iraq was handled.

      Cheney was supposed to prevent something like this from happening. He was supposed to protect the not so well prepared W. from the big mistakes. And yet, as more accounts of the maneuvering inside the administration are revealed, it is increasingly clear that it was Cheney who was the moving force behind the decision to fight a war of choice against Iraq.

      What is particularly disturbing is how the administration misused intelligence information to make its case for war and failed to plan competently for the postwar period. Two recent articles, one by George Packer in The New Yorker and another by David Rieff in The New York Times Magazine, provide detailed, on-the-record accounts of how the Pentagon deliberately ignored almost all the expert advice coming from the State Department, the CIA and from almost anywhere else about what had to be done after the war.

      There was plenty of information available about how difficult the postwar project would be, but the Pentagon planners, with utter disdain for anything coming from the State Department, ignored it. They believed that once Saddam Hussein and his top lieutenants were eliminated, the people of Iraq would greet the Americans with open arms. The State Department experts told them otherwise. Their information was trashed.

      You could blame that on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his band of neoconservative warriors led by Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. But bitter conflict between State and Defense is common in every administration. It`s the White House that is supposed to sort it out and make sure the president acts upon accurate information.

      But Cheney turned out to be the leading neoconservative. According to one account, he told Bush in February of 2002 that he believed it was a mistake to have not eliminated Hussein during Bush I and that now was the time to do it. And he then drove the policy through to war. Cheney was put there to prevent Bush from being duped by those with axes to grind, yet the vice president turned out to be the chief ax grinder.

      The same story is true on the run-up to the war. In the Dec. 4 edition of The New York Review of Books, Thomas Powers examines the administration`s contention that Iraq posed an imminent threat. He particularly cites 29 claims made by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his very influential Feb. 5 speech to the United Nations and finds that so far not one has been shown to be the case. And Powell was more cautious than others.

      The problem, Powers says, is that the White House exerted enormous pressure on the CIA to produce intelligence that coincided with its policy predilections. This is very dangerous, of course. And, given Bush`s lack of background, it`s easy to understand why he might not have understood how intelligence can be misused. It was Cheney, the seasoned, solid expert in national security matters, who was supposed to make certain the intelligence was straight, who was going to protect the president`s credibility. But it turns out he was the one pushing for information to confirm his preconceived notions.

      Yes, the buck stops with the president, but the more I learn about what happened behind the scenes the more I say put the blame on Cheney.

      Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 00:04:17
      Beitrag Nr. 10.037 ()
      Fox News` Occupation Critic
      12/03/2003 @ 9:36pm
      http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=…
      Fox News Channel is considered by many to be pro-Bush, pro-war, and pro-occupation. Yet one of the harsher critics in the media of the Bush administration`s postwar actions has been retired Major Bob Bevelacqua, a Fox News military analyst. "Major Bob," as he is called on air, served thirteen years in the Army Special Forces, which included a nation-building stint in Haiti. He also put in three years at the Pentagon. Fox enlisted him as a commentator eight days after 9/11. When not deconstructing developments in Iraq for Fox viewers, he works with William Cowan, another former military officer who is a Fox analyst, in a company trying to provide security assistance to the U.S. occupation authority and private enterprises in Iraq. Bevelacqua, who supported going to war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant and a threat to stability in the region but not a direct threat to the United States, is clearly unhappy with the whole contracting process under way in Iraq--which certainly colors his opinions, as does his time in the Special Forces. After hearing him challenge the administration`s handling of the occupation on the air and in the corridors of the Fox News Washington bureau--I, too, am a Fox News contributor--I asked Bevelacqua to spell out his objections and talk about what he saw in Iraq during a recent month-long visit there.

      What`s going wrong in Iraq?

      We didn`t make the transition from a conventional war to an unconventional war. That occurred when President Bush said the major combat is over and now we focus on the rebuilding. We were still fighting in a conventional mindset--war done, move on to the postwar--when we needed to be fighting in an unconventional mindset against what was now an unconventional enemy.

      Was it unforeseen that the invasion of Iraq would lead to a vicious insurgency? Was there no plan for that?

      It was unforeseen by the politicos, but it was foreseen by the guys who had worked in and around the military. Some were looking down the road and thinkin [bad text] tion Provisional Authority (CPA) would look like and who some of the key players would be. They took questions, and I asked two questions. First, what are you going to do with the military? Then what are you going to do with the police? There was no answer. I got a shoulder shrug: "We don`t know." So I got on my soap box for 30 seconds and went over what happened in Haiti and the lessons learned. We got the military to become police there. We changed their uniforms and changed their appearances. We gave them classes on human rights. We did not collapse them. The reaction was silence, "Thank you very much, next question." A few of us looked at each other and raised our eyebrows. After the meeting some of us huddled up in the hallway and said, "We don`t have a plan." In the small circle that I run within, the Special. Forces, this way of doing business is known as a "guided discovery."

      What does that mean?

      Go over there and make it up as you go along. If it works, great. If it doesn`t, we`ll try something else. That`s fine if you`re making chocolate bars. In this context in the Middle East, it is a recipe for failure--which is what we have at the moment, though that can be changed.

      It really was avoidable. Every administration does the exact same thing. You bring in your connected friends and allies, and you give them jobs, appoint them as Cabinet secretaries and other officials. Some do a good job. Some have no skills to do the job. As a prime example I would use [national security adviser] Condoleezza Rice. What does she have in her past experience to allow her to advise the president on all this? She`s a Soviet Union expert.

      There are a lot of smart guys in the Pentagon, and the ones with the ability to come up with a realistic plan are not going to be heard--especially if they challenge the ideology of the guys in charge. Now I think what we see in Iraq is a classic mission for the Army Special Forces--a mission heavy with civil affairs and psychological operations. It is all about working with the indigenous population of Iraq, period. The Army has doctrine on how to conduct these types of affairs. And it has flat-out been ignored.

      If the military--particularly Special Forces--has the experience to do nation-building in conjunction with counterinsurgency, why haven`t things gone better?

      We put civilians in charge--the CAP--and that was because the Pentagon and White House wanted to control the war without having to go through the military. Now that we are in the phase when large amounts of money are being let out in contracts and private industry has to be brought in, that all has to be controlled by the White House. Is it a coincidence that one of the largest companies that was awarded a contract in Iraq is aligned with Dick Cheney?

      I recently spent a month in Iraq, and I did a lot of listening and not much talking, which is not characteristic for me. The way the Iraqis see it--and they call it very accurately--is that there is a lot of corruption in how the CPA has been handling contracts with Halliburton, Bechtel, and the subcontractors. It upsets Iraqis to see subcontractors brought in from South Africa, Germany, England, India and elsewhere to do simple contracts that are not high-tech. They feel those opportunities for work should go to the Iraqi people. It is their nation; they should probably be involved in rebuilding it.

      As you know, there`s been some debate here about the media coverage of security in Iraq, with the White House and its supporters claiming that the media has played up stories about the security problems in Iraq. What did you see there?

      The security situation as a whole is nonexistent. In certain areas and sectors, it is pretty good. But the first day I got there in October somebody parked a car bomb outside the gates of the compound where our offices are in Baghdad. That first night, mortar attacks were fired from the area I lived in, which is only a kilometer or so from where the 82nd Airborne is based. If they could get that close to the Americans and fire mortars, I don`t know how anyone can argue that security is good.

      The enemy has the ability to fire when and where they like. That`s because the civilian population is allowing them to do that. And that`s because we have not embraced that civilian population. We have isolated ourselves in Saddam castle behind concrete barriers. Think of the irony of this. We put ourselves in the castles from where he dominated and repressed that country. Who do we look like? The members of the interim council had to be searched before they would be allowed to enter their offices. It was a slap in the face, and they could see foreign subcontractors coming and going into the CAP offices just by flashing an ID card. This is totally unacceptable.

      Three days before I left, an explosive charge was placed underneath the generator for our office. The blast took out the generator and blew out a portion of the glass in the office. We feel we were attacked because we were advertising what we were trying to do--that is, use Iraqis to develop information and intelligence that can be used to provide security. None of our guys were hurt. But when the attack came, the security guards we had at our offices disappeared right before the explosion. And the Iraqi who was providing us these security guards--a prominent sheik from Mosul--is working for the U.S. military, too.

      Does the Bush administration have a good bead on who--and what--it is fighting in Iraq?

      I`ve seen lists of insurgent forces they have developed, and they`re missing one category: disenfranchised and disillusioned Iraqis. They don`t recognize that as a potential group these people can create havoc. They think they`re onlookers. But these people don`t have any jobs. So when they are approached by people in the insurgency with a handful of money and asked to shoot at Americans or plant a bomb, they say, sure, we`ll do it. They think there is still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come back to power and then it will have been a smart move to have helped the insurgency.

      How angry should the American public be, if at all?

      The public deserves to know the truth. There is so much cheerleading on TV. They`re not getting the truth. Most pundits care about getting Bush in or out of office. Its politics at its worst. The White House is doing what all White Houses do--spinning. They give their take, which most of the time I find to be inaccurate. I`m an advocate for the soldier. I love my country, not necessarily the government.

      A lot of the Democratic presidential candidates talk about turning over the occupation to the U.N. and bringing in troops from other nations. Do you think that`s a feasible military option? It looks as if few other countries are eager to dispatch their troops into a counterinsurgency situation, which, as you know, is much different than a peacekeeping mission.

      The Iraqis don`t want to see anyone else send in troops. We have to use the Iraqi people, use their police force, win hearts and minds. It has to be peace through prosperity. We have to give them jobs. The large contracts may have to go to places like Halliburton and Bechtel, but there should be a law that they only can subcontract to an Iraqi company. Let these Iraqi firms team up with foreign companies if they have to, but Iraqi companies should be making the biggest gains from rebuilding their countries. I spoke to a German who got the contract to restring power lines from Baghdad to Jordan. He said he was going to use Indians, not Iraqis, to restring the lines. He was then told by a prominent Iraqi that the Iraqi people would not stand for this, that Iraqis would be shooting the Indians down from the towers. He had to reconsider. It doesn`t take a rocket scientist to figure out what is needed. We need to use cross-cultural communication skills to understand the environment and create peace through prosperity. We need the Iraqis to do their own intelligence network, their own security, their own rebuilding.

      Why don`t they share your view at the White House and the Pentagon?

      Ignorance--they just don`t know how unconventional war is fought. And arrogance--an inability to listen to the suggestions from others. And there is some professional jealousy. The civilians in the Pentagon don`t want to see the Special Forces guys handed another mission.

      I thought going to war in Iraq was a good thing. But we are screwing it up. If we change our policies and truly work with the Iraqi people, things can change. If they do not change, we will have another Beirut, another Somalia. We will end up leaving, and it will implode. And that will give us negative PR in the eyes of 1.6 billion Muslims. This is the Super Bowl. Look, we trained and advised the Afghanistan mujaheddin [who battled the Soviet Union in the 1980s] and some of them managed to fight against us later. Our ability to screw things up is immense.

      DON`T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN`S NEW BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations....Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." For more information and a sample, check out the book`s official website: www.bushlies.com.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 00:06:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.038 ()
      Distributed to newspapers by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services
      Published on Thursday, December 4, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

      Signs of Economic Recovery Haven`t Trickled Down
      by Mark Weisbrot

      How`s the economy doing? This is shaping up to be the number one question affecting President George W. Bush`s re-election bid. If you turn on the TV or pick up the newspaper, it looks like the economy is picking up steam, roaring out of a long slump just in time for the election season.

      But then you turn to your neighbors and friends, and they say it still feels like a recession. Part of this disconnect is because most people get their income from the labor market, not the stock market. The Dow is up 15 percent for the year, but unemployment is unchanged and wages are stagnant.

      Business reporting puts a lot of emphasis on the stock market, and sometimes even more esoteric indicators such as quarterly GDP growth or the Institute for Supply Management Manufacturing Index. (Both have recently taken big jumps.)

      But the vast majority of Americans still own little or no stock, even including retirement accounts. So the growth of the economy won`t help them until it shows up in rising employment or wages.

      But the Republicans got a lot of mileage out of that 8.2 percent growth in the third quarter, "the fastest in 19 years." I was a guest recently on a right-wing talk radio show in Boston, and the host kept coming back to that. As far as he was concerned, this was incontestable proof that the sun was shining brightly on the U.S. economy, and the Republican tax cuts had worked.

      I tried to point out that the economy had suffered a net loss of 2.3 million jobs since January of 2001, but he dismissed this as just liberal gloom-and-doom. But one quarter of fast growth won`t reverse this kind of damage, and growth for the fourth quarter (ending this month) will probably be about a third of the last one.

      Most tellingly, we can see the terrible underperformance of the economy by simply comparing it with previous economic recoveries. It is now a full two years since the recession of 2001 ended. Normally our economy creates millions of jobs when it recovers from a recession. The last recession -- the one that cost George W. Bush`s father his job -- was considered exceptional in that it was followed by a "jobless recovery."

      But even that "jobless recovery" had produced a net gain of 1.4 million jobs by the time two years had passed. The two previous economic recoveries (1982 and 1975) produced 7.2 million and 4.7 million jobs, respectively, in their first two years. We are now facing the unprecedented phenomenon of a "job loss" recovery: two years into the rebound, a net loss of 768 thousand jobs.

      The bleeding has stopped in the last three months, with modest job growth. But we need job gains of more than 150,000 each month just to keep the unemployment rate from rising.

      The tax cut did stimulate the economy -- we saw the effect in July and August, which gave us Mr. Bush`s big quarter. A much bigger stimulus was provided by mortgage refinancing, which pumped more than $200 billion into the economy over the previous year. This is because households use the refinancing to borrow against their mortgage (adding to their record levels of debt).

      But both of those sources of stimulus have run their course, and consumption was already flat in September and again in October. And there are serious clouds over the horizon. The biggest is an estimated $3 trillion bubble in housing prices, which when it breaks could have an effect comparable to the collapse of the stock market bubble in 2000. A reminder: it was the bursting of the stock market bubble that caused the 2001 recession and our current "job loss" recovery.

      Of course, President Bush cannot be blamed for the stock market bubble -- it was bi-partisan negligence that allowed it to grow to such outlandish proportions. But he took advantage of the recession that followed to win approval of enormous tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy.

      These tax cuts have provided minimal stimulus to the economy, while costing trillions in lost future revenue -- making it politically more difficult to counteract the economy`s weakness. This will prove to be a costly mistake, and the electorate may hold him accountable for it.

      Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

      ###
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 00:12:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.039 ()
      Published on Thursday, December 4, 2003 by the San Diego Union-Tribune
      There`s Force, and There`s Resistance
      by James O. Goldsborough

      What do California`s supermarket strike/lockout and the continued violence against U.S. occupying forces and their collaborators in Iraq have in common?

      The answer is found in Newton`s third law of motion: for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Applied to human affairs this translates into the idea of resistance.

      Power creates its own resistance, equal and opposite. The French monarchy gives way to the mob, which gives way to Napoleon, who gives way to the coalition, which brings back a more benign monarch, who gives way to a more benign Napoleon, who gives way to democracy.

      It follows that moderate power leads to moderate resistance. Mirabeau and Kerensky could have forestalled revolutionary violence in France and Russia had those monarchies been more enlightened. Britain, which had an enlightened monarchy, was spared a revolution, and its spasm of mid-17th century violence ended in the William and Mary compromise of 1689.

      Had capitalism been less savage at its origins and capitalists less rapacious, there would have been no need for resistance in the form of labor unions. In Europe, working classes turned to Marxism, while in America, they turned to organized labor in such groups as the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor.

      The U.S. labor movement cut its teeth in struggles against railroads and steel companies. Politically, resistance to the capitalist "trusts" came from progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette and Hiram Johnson.

      A good example of Newton`s law in human affairs was the Cold War. Here we had two polarized political systems providing each other with perfectly equilibrated resistance. Convinced of its virtue and the aggressiveness of the other, each side escalated or de-escalated the contest depending on the amount of resistance it found.

      Elaborate rules of the game were established. Each side could do what it liked so long as it did not directly challenge the territory of the other. The Soviet invasion of Hungary and the U.S. invasion of South Vietnam were tolerated by the antagonist.

      The Communist invasion of South Korea and the U.S. military advance on China during the Korean War were not tolerated. The wall cutting off East Berlin was tolerated. Soviet missiles in Cuba were not. The Middle East was unsettled territory, which is what made it so dangerous.

      The balance of power prevailed until Communism imploded, destroyed by its own contradictions, ending a superpower equilibrium that had existed for nearly half a century.

      Today, there is but one superpower, and that is the problem.

      For all their flaws, Communism, and socialism, its cousin, were necessary counterweights to capitalism, both politically and economically.

      Politically, there could have been no Bush administration "pre-emptive war strategy" 30 years ago, the strategy that led to President Bush`s war in Iraq. "Pre-emptive self defense," as Bush calls it, in an age of nuclear parity would have led to a U.S. nuclear strike on Russia, attacking Soviet missiles before they could attack us.

      A "pre-emptive" U.S. attack on Iraq, in the gray area, would have been impossible. The Cold War imposed mutual restraint that no longer exists.

      Economically, businesses were not as rapacious 30 years ago, not as free to cut wages and overpay management, not as free to be corrupt.

      In America, according to census figures, the share of national income going to the top 20 percent wage-earners rose from 44 percent to 50 percent from 1973 until present. The top 1 percent now earn 15 percent of all wages, the highest since measurements began.

      In wealth, disparity in America is even greater, with the richest 1 percent controlling 38 percent of national wealth. The stock market is not the great leveler we believe: The richest 20 percent of Americans own 85 percent of stock wealth.

      The labor movement is as important today as it was a century ago. In California, labor`s fight against Wal-Mart – the root cause of the supermarket strike/lockout – comes against a company whose practices are as rapacious as anything ever tried by the trusts.

      Wal-Mart, the world`s biggest company, whose revenues equal 2 percent of U.S. GDP, pays American workers 40 percent less than union workers, offers marginal benefits and buys products from slave-wage, nonunion foreign producers. Meanwhile, four of the world`s 10 richest people, according to Forbes, are named Walton.

      Resistance is necessary against concentrated power. The Bush administration is astonished at the level of "terrorism" against U.S. forces in Iraq. No preparations had been made for this level of opposition because the administration believed Iraqis would welcome the invasion.

      Bush`s misconceptions show a poor understanding of nationalism and of human nature. These are not terrorists. They are inevitable resistance to an unjust and illegal war. Americans have a tendency to believe our wars are better than those of other nations. We find in Iraq, as we did in Vietnam, this belief is not universal.

      © Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

      ###
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 00:17:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.040 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 00:19:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.041 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Bush`s Statement on Steel Tariffs



      The Associated Press
      Thursday, December 4, 2003; 1:19 PM


      A text of President Bush`s statement Thursday on his decision to lift tariffs on foreign steel, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc. and read by White House spokesman Scott McClellan:

      Today I signed a proclamation ending the temporary steel safeguard measures I put in place in March 2002. Prior to that time, steel prices were at 20-year lows and the U.S. International Trade Commission found that a surge in imports to the U.S. market was causing serious injury to our domestic steel industry.

      I took action to give the industry a chance to adjust to the surge in foreign imports and to give relief to the workers and communities that depend on steel for their jobs and livelihoods.

      These safeguard measures have now achieved their purpose, and as a result of changed economic circumstances it is time to lift them.

      The U.S. steel industry wisely used the 21 months of breathing space we provided to consolidate and restructure. The industry made progress increasing productivity, lowering production costs and making America more competitive with foreign steel producers.

      Steel producers and workers have negotiated new groundbreaking labor agreements that allow greater flexibility and increase job stability.

      The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation has guaranteed the pensions of eligible steel workers and retirees and relieved the high pension costs that burdened some companies.

      My jobs and growth plan has also created more favorable economic conditions for the industry and the improving economy will help further stimulate demand.

      To keep the positive momentum going, we will continue our steel import licensing and monitoring program so that my administration can quickly respond to future import surges that could unfairly damage the industry.

      We will continue negotiations with our trading partners through the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development to establish new and stronger disciplines on subsidies that governments grant to their steel producers.

      We will continue to pursue economic policies that create the conditions for steel producers, steel consumers, who rely on steel to produce goods ranging from refrigerators to auto parts, and other U.S. manufacturers to succeed.

      I strongly believe that America`s workers can compete with anyone in the world as long as we have a fair and level playing field. Free trade opens foreign markets to American products and creates jobs for American workers. And an integral part of our commitment to free trade is our commitment to enforcing our trade laws.

      I am pleased the steel industry seized the opportunity we provided to regain its competitiveness and assist steel workers and their communities. As a result, U.S. steel companies are now once again well-positioned to compete both at home and globally.


      © 2003 The Associated Press
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 00:37:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.042 ()

      President Bush holds a platter at Baghdad airport on Thanksgiving. The turkey had been primped to adorn the buffet line, while the 600 soldiers were served from steam trays.
      Da ist wieder mal nichts echt. Der Truthahn nur aus Pappe und der andere Teil ein Präsidentendarsteller. Die Soldaten mußten trotz der PR-Vorstellung nicht hungern, denn sie bekamen ihr Essen wie immer aus der Kantine. Und der andere gibt weiter eine verunglückte Präsidentendarstellung in Washington.

      washingtonpost.com
      The Bird Was Perfect But Not For Dinner
      In Iraq Picture, Bush Is Holding the Centerpiece

      By Mike Allen
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Thursday, December 4, 2003; Page A33


      President Bush`s Baghdad turkey was for looking, not for eating.

      In the most widely published image from his Thanksgiving day trip to Baghdad, the beaming president is wearing an Army workout jacket and surrounded by soldiers as he cradles a huge platter laden with a golden-brown turkey.

      The bird is so perfect it looks as if it came from a food magazine, with bunches of grapes and other trimmings completing a Norman Rockwell image that evokes bounty and security in one of the most dangerous parts of the world.

      But as a small sign of the many ways the White House maximized the impact of the 21/2-hour stop at the Baghdad airport, administration officials said yesterday that Bush picked up a decoration, not a serving plate.

      Officials said they did not know the turkey would be there or that Bush would pick it up. A contractor had roasted and primped the turkey to adorn the buffet line, while the 600 soldiers were served from cafeteria-style steam trays, the officials said. They said the bird was not placed there in anticipation of Bush`s stealthy visit, and military sources said a trophy turkey is a standard feature of holiday chow lines.

      The scene, which lasted just a few seconds, was not visible to a reporter who was there but was recorded by a pool photographer and described by officials yesterday in response to questions raised in Washington.

      Bush`s standing rose in a poll conducted immediately after the trip. Administration officials said the presidential stop provided a morale boost that troops in Iraq are still talking about, and helped reassure Iraqis about U.S. intentions.

      Nevertheless, the foray has opened new credibility questions for a White House that has dealt with issues as small as who placed the "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the aircraft carrier Bush used to proclaim the end of major combat operations in Iraq, and as major as assertions about Saddam Hussein`s arsenal of unconventional weapons and his ability to threaten the United States.

      The White House has updated its account of an airborne conversation in which a British Airways pilot wondered into his radio if he had just seen Air Force One and was told that it was a Gulfstream 5, a much smaller plane. White House officials first said that the British Airways pilot had talked with the Air Force One pilot. Bush aides now say the conversation occurred between the British Airways pilot and an air traffic control worker.

      "I don`t think everybody was clear on exactly how that conversation happened," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

      British Airways said it has been unable to confirm the new version. "We`ve looked into it," a spokeswoman said from London. "It didn`t happen."

      White House officials do not deny that they craft elaborate events to showcase Bush, but they maintain that these events are designed to accurately dramatize his policies and to convey qualities about him that are real.

      "This was effective, because it captured something about the president that people know is true, that he really cares about the soldiers and gets emotional when he sees them," Mary Matalin, a former administration official, said about the trip to Baghdad. "You have to figure out how to capture the Bush we know, even if it doesn`t come through in a speech situation or a press conference. He regularly rejects anything that is not him."

      The Democratic presidential candidates tipped their hats to the White House stage managers by refusing to criticize the trip, which dominated weekend newscasts.

      Aides to the Democrats said they concluded that the less said about the trip, the better. In the view of these aides, the trip produced reassuring images of a situation that has badly deteriorated, and Democrats just wanted the moment to pass so they could go back to criticizing Bush`s postwar policy.

      A poll conducted four days after Thanksgiving by the National Annenberg Election Survey put Bush`s job approval rating at 61 percent, up from 56 percent during the four days before the holiday. His job disapproval rating dropped from 41 percent to 36 percent. His personal popularity increased from 65 percent to 72 percent. The polls of 789 people before Thanksgiving and 847 people after Thanksgiving each had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

      The trip was pulled off in total secrecy -- only a few Bush aides and reporters knew about it in advance, and they were allowed to discuss it only on secure phone lines. Reporters covering the Thanksgiving program in Baghdad were not allowed to report the event until after Air Force One had left.

      Some of the reporters left behind at Crawford Middle School, where they work when Bush is staying at his Texas ranch, felt they had been deceived by White House accounts of what Bush would be doing on Thanksgiving.

      Correspondent Mark Knoller said Sunday on "CBS Evening News" that the misleading information and deception were understandable, but that he had been "filing radio reports that amounted to fiction."

      "Even as President Bush was addressing U.S. personnel in Baghdad, I was on the air saying he was at his ranch making holiday phone calls to American troops overseas," Knoller said. "I got that information from a White House official that very morning."



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 00:40:24
      Beitrag Nr. 10.043 ()
      1,700 U.S. soldiers quit Iraq: French magazine+ ( )

      PARIS, Dec 04, 2003 (Kyodo via COMTEX) -- One thousand and seven hundred U.S. soldiers have deserted their posts in Iraq, with many of them failing to return to military duty after getting permission to go back to the United States, according to the French weekly magazine Le Canard Enchaine.

      The magazine, known for its satires and exposes, said the French intelligence agency obtained the information from what it described an "American colleague."

      Citing a senior French official posted in Washington, the magazine also said that 7,000 U.S. soldiers have left Iraq allegedly due to psychological troubles and other illnesses.

      Some 2,200 others sustained serious injuries including the loss of limbs, it said.



      2003 Kyodo News (c) Established 1945
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 00:45:06
      Beitrag Nr. 10.044 ()
      A New Kind Of Poverty
      by Anna Quindlen

      http://www.msnbc.com/news/997103.asp
      America is a country that now sits atop the precarious latticework of myth. It is the myth that working people can support their families


      NEWSWEEK


      Dec. 1 issue — Winter flits in and out of New York City in the late fall, hitching a ride on the wind that whips the Hudson River. One cold morning not long ago, just as day was breaking, six men began to shift beneath their blankets under a stone arch up a rise from the water. In the shadow of the newest castle-in-the-air skyscraper midwifed by the Baron Trump, they gathered their possessions. An hour later they had vanished, an urban mirage.
      THERE’S A NEW kind of homelessness in the city, and a new kind of hunger, and a new kind of need and humiliation, but it has managed to stay as invisible as those sleepers were by sunup. “What we’re seeing are many more working families on the brink of eviction,” says Mary Brosnahan, who runs the Coalition for the Homeless. “They fall behind on the rent, and that’s it, they’re on the street.” Adds Julia Erickson, the executive director of City Harvest, which distributes food to soup kitchens and food pantries, “Look at the Rescue Mission on Lafayette Street. They used to feed single men, often substance abusers, homeless. Now you go in and there are bike messengers, clerks, deli workers, dishwashers, people who work on cleaning crews. Soup kitchens have been buying booster seats and highchairs. You never used to see young kids at soup kitchens.”
      America is a country that now sits atop the precarious latticework of myth. It is the myth that work provides rewards, that working people can support their families. It’s a myth that has become so divorced from reality that it might as well begin with the words “Once upon a time.” According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1.6 million New Yorkers, or the equivalent of the population of Philadelphia, suffer from “food insecurity,” which is a fancy way of saying they don’t have enough to eat. Some are the people who come in at night and clean those skyscrapers that glitter along the river. Some pour coffee and take care of the aged parents of the people who live in those buildings. The American Dream for the well-to-do grows from the bowed backs of the working poor, who too often have to choose between groceries and rent.


      Even if you’ve never been to the Rescue Mission, all the evidence for this is in a damning new book called “The Betrayal of Work” by Beth Shulman, a book that should be required reading for every presidential candidate and member of Congress. According to Shulman, even in the go-go ’90s one out of every four American workers made less than $8.70 an hour, an income equal to the government’s poverty level for a family of four. Many, if not most, of these workers have no health care, sick pay or retirement provisions.
      We salve our consciences, Shulman writes, by describing these people as “low skilled,” as though they’re not important or intelligent enough to deserve more. But low-skilled workers today are better educated than ever before, and they constitute the linchpin of American industry. When politicians crow that happy days are here again because jobs are on the rise, it’s these jobs they’re really talking about. Five of the 10 occupations expected to grow big in the next decade are in the lowest-paying job groups. And before we sit back and decide that that’s just the way it is, it’s instructive to consider the rest of the world. While the bottom 10 percent of American workers earn just 37 percent of our median wage, according to Shulman, their counterparts in other industrialized countries earn upwards of 60 percent. And those are countries that provide health care and child care, which cuts the economic pinch considerably.
      In America we console ourselves with the bootstrap myth, that anyone can rise, even those who work two jobs and still have to visit food pantries to feed their families. It is a beloved myth now more than ever, because the working poor have become ever more unsympathetic. Almost 40 years ago, when Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, a family with a car and a Dutch Colonial in the suburbs felt prosperous and, in the face of the president’s call to action, magnanimous. Poverty seemed far away, in the shanties of the South or the worst pockets of urban blight. Today that same family may well feel impoverished, overwhelmed by credit-card debt, a second mortgage and the cost of the stuff that has become the backbone of American life. When the middle class feels poor, the poor have little chance for change, or even recognition. Does anyone think twice about the woman who turns down the spread on the hotel bed?
      A living wage, affordable health care and housing, the bedrock understanding that it’s morally wrong to prosper through the casual exploitation of those who make your prosperity possible. It’s a tall order, I suppose. The lucky thing for many Americans is that they don’t even have to see or think about it. The office hallways get mopped somehow, the shelves get stocked at the stores. And on Thanksgiving Day, children will be pushed up to the table for a free meal in a church basement or a soup kitchen, with the understanding that that is the point of the holiday—a day of plenty in a life of want.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 00:46:25
      Beitrag Nr. 10.045 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 00:49:13
      Beitrag Nr. 10.046 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 08:36:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.047 ()
      A dispute resolved but still plenty of beefs on both sides
      Andrew Osborn in Brussels
      Friday December 5, 2003
      The Guardian

      President Bush may have swallowed his pride yesterday and agreed to end US tariffs on foreign steel but the path of transatlantic trade relations is still far from smooth.

      Steel is but one of many bones of contention. The EU is already subject to US sanctions worth $116m (£70m) a year because of its refusal to accept imports of US hormone-treated beef.

      Brussels says the growth-promoting hormones may cause cancer and damage unborn babies.

      The World Trade Organisation disagrees; it has found against the EU saying it failed to be specific enough about the risks.

      Brussels shows no signs of backing down and the US tariffs continue to make European delicacies such as Roquefort cheese and Belgian chocolate prohibitively expensive in the US.

      Washington and Brussels have also fallen out over genetically modified food.

      America has lodged a complaint with the WTO in an attempt to get the EU to lift a five-year ban on new GM food products which has enraged US farmers.

      The EU says it has new rules in place which should win over a sceptical European public - in time - but Washington has run out of patience and the issue threatens to escalate into a full-blown trade war. An illegal US multibillion dollar tax break scheme for American multinationals such as Microsoft and Caterpillar is another cause of transatlantic acrimony.

      The EU has won a WTO case on the issue but America refuses to scrap the scheme and now faces a March 1 deadline to do so or face sanctions worth $1bn in the next two years.

      A controversial EU plan to evaluate 30,000 poten tially toxic chemicals used in everyday consumer goods has also angered America. It has lobbied hard to water down the legislation and fears US chemical companies will suffer as a result.

      Subsidies granted to US and EU airlines and aircraft manufacturers are also a long-standing source of mutual tension.

      Earlier this year the stage was set for a potentially explosive stand-off when the European commission won powers to punish US airlines deemed guilty of anti-competitive behaviour.

      The commission has yet to flex its muscles on the issue but if it ever does the fallout will be huge.

      Pascal Lamy, the EU trade commissioner, may profess to be a close personal friend of Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, but the two men`s professional relationship has been less than harmonious.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 08:39:37
      Beitrag Nr. 10.048 ()
      Powell calls on Nato to send troops to Iraq
      Secretary of state says alliance is united on need to play bigger role

      Ian Black in Brussels
      Friday December 5, 2003
      The Guardian

      The US has asked Nato to take a formal role in Iraq for the first time, probably next summer, the target date for handover to Iraqi sovereignty.

      Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, made the proposal at yesterday`s meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels, a regular gathering that was dominated by furious disputes in the run-up to the war.

      He said no one - including France and Germany, the leaders of the opposition to the US-British strategy for bringing down Saddam Hussein - had objected to the plan.

      Nato is unlikely to go in without explicit UN authority and a sovereign government in Baghdad. Next summer`s Istanbul summit could be the moment to decide.

      "We urge the alliance to examine how it might do more to support peace and stability in Iraq, which every leader has acknowledged is critical to all of us," Mr Powell told his colleagues.

      "What strikes me today is that, as we discussed the possibility of Nato taking an enhanced role in Iraq, not a single member spoke against it or talked about reasons not to do it."

      However, Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, left the talks early, and Joschka Fischer, his German counterpart, repeated that Germany would not send its troops.

      Lord Robertson, Nato`s secretary general, insisted that the alliance`s emphasis was still firmly on Afghanistan, where it runs the 5,700-strong Isaf security force in Kabul and is planning to expand into rural regions.

      But he made clear that Iraq was firmly on the agenda. Such a sentiment was unthinkable a few months ago, when Nato suffered what the US ambassador called "a near death experience" during the biggest crisis in its 54-year history.

      Transatlantic tensions were still evident yesterday in exchanges over the vexed question of European defence. Tony Blair is trying to implement a deal for a "planning cell", or headquarters, agreed with Paris and Berlin.

      The prime minister was due to speak to President George Bush to try to calm US opposition before this weekend`s EU summit, which is expected to finalise its constitution.

      "The United States cannot accept independent EU structures that duplicate Nato capabilities," Mr Powell said. But he used the same emollient tone adopted by the more hawkish Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, earlier this week.

      "Discussions will continue, and I`m sure we`ll find a satisfactory solution in the not- too-distant future."

      Analysts see a trade-off between Nato`s readiness to help in Iraq and US understanding of the need for autonomous EU defence, however limited.

      Tackling Iraq, however sensitive an issue, would also answer the alliance`s almost neurotic need for "relevance".

      Eighteen of its 26 current and incoming members have contingents there - from Italy`s 2,500 to Estonia`s 55 troops. Nato helps with planning, logistics and communications for the Polish-run sector in the centre of the country, but has no formal role.

      Pressure for Nato involvement is coming from Poland, Spain and Italy, which have all suffered casualties.

      "Iraq is not for now," said one diplomat. "The Americans are planting the seed and will wait for it to germinate. They are thinking about the future, and are being very careful not to lead the way. They are leaving that to the Poles and Spanish.

      "Afghanistan is the here and now. That`s where our credibility is on the line. In Iraq, it`s a question of who takes over from the troops who are there now. And it becomes easier politically next summer too."

      Nato involvement will require an Iraqi government and a UN commissioner to replace the US-led coalition provisional authority, which is running the civilian side of the occupation.

      Mr Powell paid warm tribute to Lord Robertson, who leaves Nato after four years at the end of the month. He praised the former UK defence secretary`s Scottish sense of humour, exemplified by his comment that chairing an alliance meeting was like "transporting frogs in a wheelbarrow".

      · The total cost to Britain of the war on terrorism so far was put at £5.5bn by the chancellor, Gordon Brown. In a Commons debate on the Queen`s Speech, he said the figure included operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. His announcement came ahead of next Wednesday`s pre-budget report.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 08:47:22
      Beitrag Nr. 10.049 ()

      An Iraqi who said he was a resistance fighter was interviewed in a cemetery in Hawija Thursday. He said his unit numbered about 15 guerrillas.
      December 5, 2003
      THE FOE
      A Tale of War: Iraqi Describes Battling G.I.`s
      By IAN FISHER

      HAWIJA, Iraq, Dec. 4 — The man was in the car for less than two minutes Thursday when he pulled out a hand grenade. He had been carrying it, like an apple, in a little red shopping bag. He smiled. The other passengers winced.

      "If you don`t pull the pin," he explained calmly, "it won`t explode."

      The grenade was not, apparently, a threat but the man`s way of trying to establish that he was, as he claimed, a member of the "resistance." Little is known about these forces except that they keep killing anyone associated with the American-led occupation and are making the American mission in Iraq very dangerous and difficult.

      It was unclear why this man, who said he was a former soldier, and appeared sturdy and fit, perhaps 35 years old, was willing to talk to a Western reporter. His account could not be verified. He readily agreed to an interview after being introduced by a man who identified himself to The New York Times as a local reporter. The local reporter offered to make contact with what he termed the local resistance in this city in the Sunni Muslim heartland, the center for violence against Americans in Iraq.

      American commanders say the people fighting them appear more brazen recently, and in recent weeks they have even circulated leaflets in Hawija asking all Iraqis to join them. Grenade still in hand and with a nerve-racking politeness, this fighter steered the car`s driver to a cemetery here where he said several of his comrades, killed by American soldiers, were buried.

      There, in almost an hour of conversation behind a wall, keeping an unending vigil for American soldiers on patrol, the man described what he said were operations of his cell, which he said consisted of some 15 men, mostly former soldiers, who take no direct orders from anyone, but are in contact with other similar groups.

      "People with more military experience than me set the targets and make the plans," he said.

      "It is like, `I have a friend, who has another friend,` " he said. "We have contacts between the cells but there is no real organization."

      Some of the details given by the man — whose full story could not be independently corroborated — dovetailed with comments from the American military. The man said, for instance, that six insurgents were killed in an Aug. 30 firefight with the Americans, the same number given by Maj. Douglas Vincent, a spokesman for the 173rd Airborne Brigade, which has responsibility for Hawija.

      Major Vincent dismissed as "very creative" the man`s assertion that his cell had killed a total of 500 Americans. Six Americans have been killed in the area since late March, the major said.

      The man`s description squared largely with that of American military officials, who say they believe the attacks are carried out by loosely organized groups, composed of soldiers and others loyal to Mr. Hussein, as well as by Muslims from other countries who have come to Iraq to fight Americans. This fighter said he had seen no foreigners in the ranks of the resistance.

      He said his group had mounted about 35 attacks locally, of which he participated in "more than five." His comments suggested a good knowledge of weapons, and he said his cell used Katyusha rockets, rocket-propelled grenades, large machine guns, AK-47`s, mines and homemade bombs detonated by remote control (though he would not say exactly what kind of remote was used). He said they bought some weapons with their own money and looted others from unguarded ammunition dumps left over from before the war.

      "We want the world to know that Bush, the biggest criminal of all, and Blair, that monkey of the desert, will not be able to control the Iraqis," he said. "We will not allow them to kill Iraqis. I am speaking before God, on my behalf and that of the other mujahedeen."

      His choice of the word "mujahedeen" was perhaps one of the most telling details about what this insurgency would like to be.

      The word means "holy warrior," and for many Muslims it connotes brave struggles against occupiers over centuries, against the crusaders a millennium ago or against the Russians in Afghanistan a mere two decades ago. These resisters would like that honorable title bestowed on them. The recruiting leaflets the American military says were found here called for Iraqis to join them on a "jihad," or holy war, against the Americans — prompting a large United States military raid on the town this week.

      But the Americans increasingly use a different word: "fedayeen."

      In Iraq, the fedayeen were Sadddam Hussein`s dark-uniformed storm-troopers, who, unbroken after the American-led alliance invaded Iraq last spring, appear to be among the most potent force behind the attacks on Americans and their allies here, American officials say.

      Many Iraqis also consider the resisters fedayeen, even those Iraqis who strongly oppose the American occupation here, and worry that Mr. Hussein would return if the resisters win.

      "If it were not for Saddam, I think more people would have joined already," said Kashid Ahmad Saleh, 48, a farmer here who is deeply angry at the American presence.

      It was hard to pin down any single motive for the fighter here, who said he served in the Iraqi Army for six years, ending in 1998, and who gave the nickname "Fighter for the Sake of God." In compact and articulate answers, the man seemed a fanatic neither for God nor for Mr. Hussein.

      "We are not fighting for Saddam," he said. "We are fighting for freedom and because the Americans are Jews. The Governing Council," he said, referring to the body of Iraqis appointed by the Americans, "is a bunch of looters and criminals and mercenaries. We cannot expect that stability in this country will ever come from them."

      "The principle is based on religion and tribal loyalties," he added. "The religious principle is that we cannot accept to live with infidels. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, said, `Hit the infidels wherever you find them.` We are also a tribal people. We cannot allow strangers to rule over us."

      But much as he protested that Mr. Hussein was not the reason for fighting, he nonetheless said that "Saddam never did any bad things."

      Then he defended two of the actions Mr. Hussein is often blamed for here in Iraq and abroad: "The Kurds deserved all that happened to them because they are traitors and criminals. Kuwait deserved what it got because it stole our oil."

      In 1990, Mr. Hussein invaded Kuwait, prompting an American-led invasion the next year that pulled back, at the last moment, from toppling him from power.

      In the 1980`s, Mr. Hussein, an Arab, waged war against the Kurds of the north, removing many from their land in favor of his fellow Arabs. A fear of reprisals from the Kurds now empowered by the American victory — a fear echoed in this Sunni Arab town — seemed yet another reason this fighter, a Sunni Arab, has chosen to fight.

      So far, he said, 10 of his comrades have been killed, and at the cemetery he knelt down to pay his respects at the flag-covered graves of two of those killed Aug. 30.

      Major Vincent cited the Aug. 30 attack, in which he said two American soldiers were wounded, as the "perfect" example of the resistance`s weakness.

      "If they were truly winning the struggle, they wouldn`t be scared to operate in the day, they wouldn`t attack innocent aid organizations and Iraqi citizens, but would have the courage to face the U.S. Army directly, which they don`t, because when they do, they die," Major Vincent said in an e-mail message on Thursday.

      The man said the insurgents` overall strategy was just what American commanders say it is: To kill so many soldiers that America has no political choice but to leave Iraq. The recent American decision to speed up civilian control to Iraqis, he said, was one indication their strategy is working — an assertion Major Vincent and other Americans strongly reject.

      "They are beginning to be defeated," the man said. "I want my message to reach the world. We will stop killing Americans if they withdraw. As we are precious to our families, American soldiers are precious to their families."

      Attack on Police Station

      BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 4 (Reuters) — Rocket-propelled grenades were fired at a police station in the town of Ramadi, 68 miles west of Baghdad on Thursday. Six people were wounded as officers gathered to receive their monthly salaries.

      Last month, 17 policemen were killed in twin bomb blasts north of Baghdad as insurgents stepped up actions against security forces seen to be cooperating with the Americans.

      Also on Thursday, an American armored personnel carrier erupted in flames after hitting a roadside mine in Baghdad. American forces said no one was hurt.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 08:49:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.050 ()
      December 5, 2003
      Pentagon and Bogus News: All Is Denied
      By ERIC SCHMITT

      WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 — Early last year Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disbanded the Pentagon`s Office of Strategic Influence after it became known that the office was considering plans to provide false news items to unwitting foreign journalists to influence policymakers and public sentiment abroad.

      But a couple of months ago, the Pentagon quietly awarded a $300,000 contract to SAIC, a major defense consultant, to study how the Defense Department could design an "effective strategic influence" campaign to combat global terror, according to an internal Pentagon document.

      Sound familiar?

      Senior Pentagon officials said Thursday that they were caught unawares by the contract and insisted its language was a "poor choice of words" by a low-level staffer. They said the work did not reflect any backdoor effort to resurrect the discredited office and was merely a study to understand Al Qaeda better and find ways to combat it.

      "We are not recreating that office," said Thomas O`Connell, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, the policy arm of the Pentagon that deals with the military`s most secretive operators and whose staff wrote the document.

      But some critics of the former office voiced skepticism, saying that the contract amounted to a veiled attempt to create a low-budget copy of its ill-fated predecessor. A spokesman for SAIC referred all questions to the Pentagon.

      "It sounds very similar," said a senior military official who opposed the former office. "To run a perception-management campaign at the strategic level is the wrong thing for D.O.D. to be involved in."

      The military has long engaged in information warfare against hostile nations, but the ill-fated Office of Strategic Influence proposed to broaden that mission into a strategic "perception management" campaign in allied nations in the Middle East, Asia and even Europe. That would have given the office a role traditionally carried out by civilians.

      Mr. Rumsfeld and other administration officials have voiced concern that the United States is losing public support overseas for its war on terrorism, particularly in Islamic countries. The document, which describes details of the SAIC contract and is entitled "Winning the War of Ideas," describes a bleak picture of how that battle is going.

      "Our inability to seize the initiative in the `War of Ideas` with Al Qaeda is perhaps our most significant shortcoming so far in the war against terrorism," said the document, dated Sept. 17, 2003. "We do not fully understand Al Qaeda and its relationship to supportive communities in the Islamic world, and so are not yet able to develop an effective strategy for countering its propaganda in those communities, let alone for winning the information campaign in the war against terrorism."

      The document said one goal was to establish a "road map for creating an effective D.O.D. capability to design and conduct effective strategic influence and operational and tactical perception-management campaigns."

      When read that sentence, a senior defense official winced at the wording. "We`re asking for a menu of thoughts on how to approach this," the official explained. "This is not a secret document on how we`re going to change the Arab world`s perception of the U.S."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 08:52:03
      Beitrag Nr. 10.051 ()
      December 5, 2003
      OP-ED COLUMNIST
      Looting the Future
      By PAUL KRUGMAN

      One thing you have to say about George W. Bush: he`s got a great sense of humor. At a recent fund-raiser, according to The Associated Press, he described eliminating weapons of mass destruction from Iraq and ensuring the solvency of Medicare as some of his administration`s accomplishments.

      Then came the punch line: "I came to this office to solve problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations." He must have had them rolling in the aisles.

      In the early months of the Bush administration, one often heard that "the grown-ups are back in charge." But if being a grown-up means planning for the future — in fact, if it means anything beyond marital fidelity — then this is the least grown-up administration in American history. It governs like there`s no tomorrow.

      Nothing in our national experience prepared us for the spectacle of a government launching a war, increasing farm subsidies and establishing an expensive new Medicare entitlement — and not only failing to come up with a plan to pay for all this spending in the face of budget deficits, but cutting taxes at the same time.

      Recent good economic news doesn`t change the verdict. These aren`t temporary measures aimed at getting the economy back on its feet; they`re permanent drains on the budget. Serious estimates show a long-term budget gap, even with a recovery, of at least 25 percent of federal spending. That is, the federal government — including Medicare, which Mr. Bush has given new responsibilities without new resources — is nowhere near solvent.

      Then there`s international trade policy. Here`s how the steel story looks from Europe: the administration imposed an illegal tariff for domestic political reasons, then changed its mind when threatened with retaliatory tariffs focused on likely swing states. So the U.S. has squandered its credibility: it is now seen as a nation that honors promises only when it`s politically convenient.

      What really makes me wonder whether this republic can be saved, however, is the downward spiral in governance, the hijacking of public policy by private interests.

      The new Medicare bill is a huge subsidy for drug and insurance companies, coupled with a small benefit for retirees. In comparison, the energy bill — which stalled last month, but will come back — has a sort of purity: it barely even pretends to be anything other than corporate welfare. Did you hear about the subsidy that will help Shreveport get its first Hooters restaurant?

      And it`s not just legislation: hardly a day goes by without an administrative decision that just happens to confer huge benefits on favored corporations, at the public`s expense. For example, last month the Internal Revenue Service dropped its efforts to crack down on the synfuel tax break — a famously abused measure that was supposed to encourage the production of alternative fuels, but has ended up giving companies billions in tax credits for spraying coal with a bit of diesel oil. The I.R.S. denies charges by Bill Henck, one of its own lawyers, that it buckled under political pressure. Coincidentally, according to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Henck has suddenly found himself among the tiny minority of taxpayers facing an I.R.S. audit.

      Awhile back, George Akerlof, the Nobel laureate in economics, described what`s happening to public policy as "a form of looting." Some scoffed at the time, but now even publications like The Economist, which has consistently made excuses for the administration, are sounding the alarm.

      To be fair, the looting is a partly bipartisan affair. More than a few Democrats threw their support behind the Medicare bill, the energy bill or both. But the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress are leading the looting party. What are they thinking?

      The prevailing theory among grown-up Republicans — yes, they still exist — seems to be that Mr. Bush is simply doing whatever it takes to win the next election. After that, he`ll put the political operatives in their place, bring in the policy experts and finally get down to the business of running the country.

      But I think they`re in denial. Everything we know suggests that Mr. Bush`s people have given as little thought to running America after the election as they gave to running Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. And they will have no idea what to do when things fall apart.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 08:55:08
      Beitrag Nr. 10.052 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 08:56:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.053 ()
      Bush Bring Back the Draft?
      NEW YORK--When I was a kid, standing around the post office waiting for my mom to buy stamps, I entertained myself by flipping through the "wanted" notices clipped to the bulletin board. I was impressed by the fact that most of the people who`d done bad things didn`t look all that evil in their mug shots. Mostly the felons looked tired. And poor. You could tell from their frayed collars.

      Mixed in with the accused murderers, kidnappers and mail fraud conspirators (this was the post office, after all) were local kids wanted for dodging the draft. Their profiles didn`t look anything like those of men wanted for tri-state killing sprees. The sections dedicated to "prior convictions" were blank and the government didn`t have fingerprints for them. Draft evaders` photos came from their high school yearbooks where everyone turned a little to the right, grinning with optimism and framed by shaggy early `70s haircuts. Nevertheless, the message was clear. As far as the government was concerned, evading service in Vietnam was as bad as boosting a bank.

      Whenever the feds needed more cannon fodder, they interrupted primetime sit-coms to broadcast a draft lottery. Two guys wearing American flag lapel pins would turn a metal tumbler and pluck out slips of paper bearing birthdays from 18 years earlier. "If you were born on April 4, 1951, you have 30 days to report to your local Selective Service bureau."

      Shirley Jackson`s short story "The Lottery" wasn`t nearly as creepy.

      "How long has this war been going on?" I asked my mom while Uncle Walt recited body counts along with the closing value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Born in 1963, I must have been about 8.

      "Pretty much since you were born," she replied. Then she corrected herself. "Well, really even before that."

      "Will it end before I turn 18?"

      "I don`t know. Probably not. I hope so."

      They stopped the draft when I was 10; we lost the war two years later. I never had to resolve the terrible dilemma that drove those kids on the wanted posters to flee to Canada. Were they pacifists or were they wimps? Everyone knew that Vietnam wasn`t winnable. Was it wrong to refuse to die for nothing, or was it good sense? Was defending the corrupt South Vietnamese regime of President Nguyen Van Thieu "fighting for your country"? Even if a war was both winnable and moral--World War II, say--was forcing a human being to risk death and dismemberment a form of slavery?

      War is the riskiest and gravest endeavor that can be undertaken by a nation-state. Defensive combat, the struggle for self-preservation, is the only kind of war a just and prudent nation may wage. Unless an overwhelming majority of a country`s citizens agree that a war is necessary--a real war like Iraq or Vietnam, not a lark like Grenada or Panama-it cannot be won. And a country united by the consensus that it must fight doesn`t need a draft. Citizens will line up to volunteer.

      In early November, the Pentagon website DefendAmerica.mil put out a call for applicants willing to serve on Selective Service System draft boards. "Serve Your Community and the Nation--Become a Selective Service System Local Board Member," the ad read. "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 local and appeal boards throughout America would decide which young men who submit a claim receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on federal guidelines." Noting that the SSS hopes to fill its 8,000 draft board slots by spring 2005, many journalists are wondering aloud whether the Bush Administration plans to reinstate forced conscription of 18-to-26-year-olds after the election, just on time for invasions of Iran, Syria and/or North Korea.

      Reports of a big uptick in the draft agency`s budget from `03 to `04 abound, yet the feds claim that ramping up Selective Service is part of "the routine cycle of things." "There are no secret discussions," says SSS spokesman Pat Schuback. "We aren`t doing any planning that we don`t do on a routine basis." Yet they refuse to issue a categorical denial. A February Surprise, perhaps?

      Our armed forces are stretched dangerously thin. 60,000 of the 130,000 troops stationed in Iraq come from the National Guard or reserves. 90,000 more are serving in Kuwait, Afghanistan, South Korea, Kosovo and Macedonia. Demoralized by low pay and long tours of duty under harsh conditions--why won`t Bush invade someplace with nice weather and hot babes?--49 percent of soldiers told Stars and Stripes newspaper that they won`t re-enlist. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top brass say they prefer volunteer professionals to surly conscripts, but in the end they may not have a choice.

      This much is certain: If Bush resumes his neocolonial landgrab after "re"election, he`ll have to bring back the draft. And a new generation of young men, ordered to disrupt their lives to feed the vanity and bank accounts of a cabal of gangsters, will ponder whether to flee or fight.

      (Ted Rall is the author of the graphic travelogue "To Afghanistan and Back," an award-winning recounting of his experiences covering the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. It is now available in a revised and updated paperback edition containing new material. Ordering information is available at amazon.com.)

      COPYRIGHT 2003 TED RALL

      RALL 12/2/03
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 08:58:46
      Beitrag Nr. 10.054 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 08:59:51
      Beitrag Nr. 10.055 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Return to Moon May Be on Agenda


      By Mike Allen and Kathy Sawyer
      Washington Post Staff Writers
      Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A01


      President Bush`s aides are considering a new lunar exploration program and other unifying national goals, including a campaign to promote longevity or fight childhood illness or hunger, as they sift ideas for a fresh agenda for the final year of his term, administration officials said yesterday.

      Several government agencies and task forces have been assigned to determine the cost and feasibility of a variety of major ideas, which could cost billions of dollars at a time when the nation is running a substantial budget deficit.

      An interagency group led by the White House, for instance, has been working since August on a blueprint for interplanetary human flight over the next 20 to 30 years to give NASA a new mission after the Feb. 1 disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia. Plans call for Bush to issue an ambitious new national vision for space travel by early next year, and officials said the initiative is likely to involve cooperation between NASA and the military.

      The development of big ideas for Bush`s 2004 agenda is being led by the president`s senior adviser, Karl Rove, the officials said. Administration officials said options have not been presented to the president, let alone decided, but the search is active for ambitious initiatives to flesh out a reelection agenda that also includes limiting lawsuits, making the tax cuts permanent and adding private investment accounts to the Social Security system.

      One person consulted by the White House said some aides appear to relish the idea of a "Kennedy moment" for Bush, referring to the 1962 call by President John F. Kennedy for the nation to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth by the end of the decade.

      A senior administration official said that "a lot of simultaneous efforts have been launched" in a quest for such an idea, and that the efforts have been underway since at least late summer. The official said the planning was born of an effort to follow up Bush`s emergency plan for AIDS relief in this year`s State of the Union address, which called for spending $15 billion over five years to help African and Caribbean countries fight the pandemic.

      This official said Bush`s closest aides are promoting big initiatives on the theory that they contribute to Bush`s image as a decisive leader even if people disagree with some of the specifics. "Iraq was big. AIDS is big," the official said. "Big works. Big grabs attention."

      An ambitious plan for space travel is one possibility, though Republican officials said they are wary of repeating what they consider the mistakes of Bush`s father. On July 20, 1989, the 20th anniversary of the first human moon landing, President George H.W. Bush issued a call for a sustained commitment to human exploration of the solar system, with a return to the moon as a steppingstone to the main destination -- Mars. NASA responded with a budget-shattering $400 billion plan to fulfill that goal, and it swiftly sank under its own weight.

      Vice President Cheney recently discussed possibilities with lawmakers with jurisdiction over the space program but did not tip his hand. Options that have been considered by the administration include a permanent outpost on the moon and a human mission to Mars.

      Although much of the scientific and emotional focus has been on Mars over the past decade, the buzz inside NASA has seemed to shift toward a return of man to the moon, officials at the space agency said.

      "The drumbeat is getting louder," Wendell Mendell, manager of the Office for Human Exploration Science at NASA`s Johnson Space Center in Houston, said in a telephone interview. Mendell has long advocated a return to the moon. "The tables and lists being created here are consistent" with a lunar initiative, he said.

      NASA Administrator Sean O`Keefe has steadfastly declined to discuss the ongoing review of space policy, except to acknowledge that it is "moving forward."

      Edward Weiler, NASA`s chief of space sciences, said in an interview yesterday that he commissioned a major study to determine space science priorities, which was completed by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences earlier this year.

      "I was surprised that the moon turned out to be one of their targets," he said. The panel listed the moon as one of five prime targets, he said, primarily because a crater at its South Pole contains some of the oldest, if not the oldest, exposed material in the solar system.

      Advocates have argued that the moon could be useful in many other ways, as a base for developing technologies, for astronomical observations and for human rehearsals for operating in space. One person consulted by the White House said officials think a renewed push into space would fuel the manufacturing and technology sectors of the economy.

      Bush aides and advisers said that separately from his space plans, he is also looking for ideas for next month`s State of the Union address that would not rely solely on the government but would also rally business, volunteers and other parts of society.

      The Department of Heath and Human Services is developing a proposal that would funnel billions of dollars over at least a decade into relatively noncontroversial research into cures for cancer and other diseases. A GOP official said this effort could be "the Republican equivalent of the War on Poverty."

      A senior administration official said policy experts have also researched possibilites for universal health insurance for children. The official said the administration has also been "going to considerable effort to see how much it would cost to attack child hunger and quote, unquote end child hunger."

      Political calculations are involved, according to Republican sources. One presidential adviser pointed out that a major anti-disease initiative would be popular with baby boomers. One quality the proposals have in common is that they are not obviously divisive.

      On the other hand, the White House will be constrained by the growing budget deficit, which is projected to approach $500 billion in the current fiscal year.

      The plans reflect a consistent strain in Bush`s rhetoric, going back to his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in 2000, when he promised to use "good times for great goals." In fundraising speeches for his reelection campaign, Bush says he wants to pursue "great goals worthy of a great nation."

      Staff writer Rick Weiss contributed to this report.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 09:01:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.056 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Islam`s Role in Interim Government of Iraq Debated


      By Walter Pincus
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A22


      U.S. and Iraqi negotiators are confronting problems over the role of Islam in government and the status of Kurdish regions as they try to write a "fundamental law" -- the precursor to an Iraqi constitution and a key first step in ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

      Though much attention has been focused on the jockeying over how Iraqis will be elected to a transitional national assembly, also important is the fundamental law that will control the interim government`s actions.

      As outlined last month in a signed agreement between U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and the Iraqi Governing Council, the fundamental law is supposed to be finished by Feb. 28 and provide a timetable for drafting a constitution and holding national elections in time for the United States to turn over sovereignty by June 30. That deadline is threatened by unresolved issues such as the separation of mosque and state.

      "The fundamental law has all the same problems as the constitution," said Noah Feldman, an assistant professor of law at New York University who has specialized in Arab law and is consulting with Bremer on legal issues in Iraq.

      As well as set up the election schedule, the fundamental law is supposed to establish the equivalent of a bill of rights for Iraqi citizens, set up a federal-type government with powers divided between the central and local entities, and create an independent judiciary with the power to review actions by the legislative and executive branches. In other Arab countries, such temporary laws were in effect for years before being replaced by constitutions.

      "The role of religion in their society and the relationship between sub-national government entities and the national government are issues the Iraqis are working through with Bremer," said Sean McCormack, a foreign policy spokesman for the White House. "They will have to come to their own accommodation."

      Religion is a key first problem. Iraq`s 1925 constitution and the one in effect during Saddam Hussein`s reign held that Islam is the state religion, even though the Iraqi dictator downgraded religion and persecuted Shiite clergy.

      Bremer has repeatedly said it is up to the Iraqis to decide the role of Islam in their government, leaving some members of Congress and others concerned that the door may be opened for an Iranian-type theocracy. Last month, Bremer told an interviewer he thought the eventual constitution would "probably" favor Islam.

      A representative of the influential Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) said last month that the omission of Islam from the agreement to set up the fundamental law was "an oversight, but should be repaired." A coalition official responded that "it is up to the Governing Council to put it down in the fundamental law."

      Iraqi Islamists "have become more militant" after reading Afghanistan`s draft constitution, Feldman said in a recent interview. The Afghan document not only makes Islam the state religion but also says no law may be incompatible with Islam. "We are going to have to put that [Islam as a state religion] in," Feldman said.

      Judith S. Yaphe, a senior research fellow at National Defense University and a former senior CIA Iraq analyst, said that Islam is "the first problem and a very big one."

      "I don`t know how flexible [the United States] will be," she said, but warned that there would be trouble if Congress insisted on separation of mosque and state. "This is an Islamic state. You can have freedom of religion, because the Koran protects Christians and Jews, but 95 percent there are Muslim."

      Soner Cagaptay, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who specializes in Kurdish and Turkish affairs, said yesterday that including Islam in the fundamental law "was not good news." Hussein "was a devil but a secular leader," he said. In contrast to their Afghan counterparts, "Iraqi women had the best opportunities in the Arab world."

      On the human rights side, Feldman said, Iraq`s fundamental law "could incorporate all the international declarations, such as human rights, that Iraq has signed in the past."

      Creation of a federal system for Iraq is proving more difficult than expected because of the expectations of the Kurds, according to Cagaptay. A letter that the Governing Council sent to the United Nations in November, when the council`s rotating presidency was held by Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, said the fundamental law would not only deal with human and religious rights, but also introduce "a degree of decentralization" in administering the country.

      Although that letter has been withdrawn because it was subsequently described as a "draft," the Kurds have in mind a "more asymmetrical version" of a federation than the word normally implies, Cagaptay said. The traditional idea would be taking Iraq`s existing 18 governates and treating them like U.S. states; three of the governates are considered Kurdish, so it would reduce the power of the Kurds.

      The Kurds instead see Iraq as one state and Kurdistan "as a separate but unified state within that state with strong powers of its own," Cagaptay said. "In other words, Iraq [would be] a fairly centralized state with another strong federal entity attached to it."

      He went on to describe how difficult it would be to draw the borders for these states, saying there "are no ethnic boundaries, no religious pure towns, both Arabs and Kurds mixed together with others in an oil-rich area."

      Writing last week in the Kurdistan Observer, Nazhad Khasraw Hawramany raised another sensitive issue relative to the fundamental law. Reflecting a broad view within Kurdistan, he said the Kurds "have chosen a voluntary federation with the rest of Iraq." He warned that if through the new fundamental law the coalition authority and the Iraqi council "try again to force a central authoritarian rule on Kurdistan, then there will be only one choice for the Kurds, and that is to resort to their legitimate right of self-determination and independence."

      The Kurds, he wrote, "will not tolerate any authoritarian and dominant Arab rule any more."



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 09:03:59
      Beitrag Nr. 10.057 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      U.S. Presses Counteroffensive, But Guerrillas Strike Again


      By Alan Sipress
      Washington Post Foreign Service
      Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A21


      BAGHDAD, Dec. 4 -- Two Iraqi policemen and four civilians were wounded Thursday when insurgents fired two rockets at the police station in Ramadi, about 70 miles west of the capital, as officers were gathering to collect their monthly pay, officials said.

      Though the attack caused no fatalities, it demonstrated the guerrillas` continuing ability to strike Iraqi security forces working with the U.S. occupation after bombings last month outside two police stations north of Baghdad killed 17 people.

      In a separate incident, an ammunition transport truck burst into flames Thursday afternoon when it hit a land mine in Baghdad, U.S. military officials said. No U.S. troops were hurt in the incident.

      Minutes after the explosion, flames billowed from the armored vehicle as dozens of U.S. forces closed down the road, a major highway connecting the city with the international airport to the southwest. Two helicopters circled overhead while Iraqi motorists on a nearby bridge slowed down to look, snarling rush-hour traffic.

      The attacks came as U.S. officials said they have sharply reduced the number of strikes against allied forces by pressing an offensive against suspected loyalists of the ousted president, Saddam Hussein.

      U.S. paratroops from the 82nd Airborne Division on Wednesday captured a former brigadier general in Hussein`s Republican Guard during an early morning raid in Fallujah, a city near Ramadi in the heartland of anti-U.S. resistance, military officials said.

      According to the officials, Brig. Gen. Daham Mahemdi was suspected of maintaining indirect contact with Hussein and directing guerrilla activities in Fallujah. He was seized at his home with two Kalashnikov assault rifles, a pistol, a shotgun and ammunition.

      U.S. forces also detained a Shiite Muslim activist, Amar Yassiri, for alleged involvement in an Oct. 9 ambush that killed two U.S. soldiers in Sadr City, a vast, mainly Shiite neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. A spokesman for a prominent Shiite cleric, Moqtada Sadr, a harsh critic of the U.S. occupation and the most influential figure in Sadr City, denied Yassiri was connected to Sadr.

      At the same time, Abdel Hadi Daraji, a close Sadr associate, sharply criticized the U.S. troops for arresting Shiite activists, accusing the occupation forces of copying Hussein`s tactics of detaining and intimidating critics.

      While many Iraqi Shiites welcomed Hussein`s ouster and the end of years of official repression of their religion, those around Sadr said they were concerned that U.S. forces may now be planning to remain in Iraq for a long time.



      © 2003 The Washington
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 09:05:31
      Beitrag Nr. 10.058 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Not Good Enough




      Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A30


      FOR MORE THAN a year and a half, the U.S. government has held Yaser Esam Hamdi in custody domestically without allowing him to see a lawyer or a judge. So, should one feel grateful that at long last the military has agreed to grant this U.S. citizen access to an attorney? Alas, the Pentagon has taken something less than a major step in bringing the rule of law to bear for U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants. If it is a change in policy at all, it is a slight retreat whose chief effect will be not to provide real checks and balances but to improve the government`s position before the Supreme Court. Letting Mr. Hamdi have access to counsel now does not remedy the absence of known rules and standards concerning who can be held as enemy combatants and how they can contest their designations.

      The military declared that it will permit legal counsel for citizens detained as enemy combatants -- after their interrogations are complete and after the military determines that such access will not harm national security interests. This basic public recognition that U.S. citizens will not be held indefinitely with no legal assistance is certainly positive. But it`s not clear that the military has actually changed its policy. The government has not argued that enemy combatants could never see lawyers, but rather that the government could block access as long as it wanted. That`s still the government`s position. Mr. Hamdi`s access, the military says, is "a matter of discretion and military policy and not required by domestic or international law and should not be treated as a precedent." And sure enough, the Pentagon is still preventing the other citizen held as an enemy combatant, Jose Padilla, from talking to his lawyers.

      The announcement was made one day before the government was due to file a brief urging the Supreme Court not to take up Mr. Hamdi`s case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond has ruled that Mr. Hamdi -- a U.S.-born Saudi who was captured in Afghanistan while allegedly fighting with a Taliban unit -- may be held purely on the strength of the government`s word that he was an enemy fighter. It didn`t even need to hear, the court ruled, whether he disputes his supposed status before consigning him to military custody for the duration of the war on terror. By letting him meet with a lawyer now, the military may make the case seem less urgent to the justices and the consequences of its own position less dangerous. If the court consequently declines to step in or shows greater deference, the perverse result will be that the 4th Circuit`s ruling will stand. By belatedly granting access to counsel to a man who is by all accounts a small fish, the government potentially protects its ability to refuse counsel to more important figures.

      Yet discretionary access to counsel only in those cases where the government deems it appropriate is a wholly inadequate answer. There must be a predictable and orderly process for enemy combatants to contest their designations and for courts to make sure that any egregious errors get corrected. Mr. Hamdi is probably what the government alleges him to be. But the rules have to contemplate the possibility of error. The victim of a misunderstanding should not have to wait nearly two years to be able to meet with a lawyer and present his case.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 09:07:02
      Beitrag Nr. 10.059 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Rethinking Kyoto




      Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A30


      NOT MANY PEOPLE really like the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. President Bush`s domestic opponents criticized him for abruptly abandoning attempts to ratify it when he took office in 2001, conveniently forgetting that the Senate had voted 95 to 0 to reject it in 1997, a margin that surely reflects broad bipartisan opposition. Among the many European countries that have also complained loudly about the United States` failure to ratify the treaty, only two, Britain and Sweden, are actually on track to meet Kyoto`s targets for reduction of greenhouse gases. This week the European Union`s environment commissioner sent a scolding letter to all 15 member countries, complaining that the trend of emissions is "going in the wrong direction." Canada, which has also assailed the United States for abandoning the Kyoto accord, may now be close to also pulling out of the treaty. Worse, an unforeseen flaw in the treaty`s design has left Russia, not a country with a deep commitment to the environment, with an effective veto over the whole affair. Russia is now being coy about whether it will ratify, apparently hoping that it can extract advantages from Western Europe in exchange for doing so.

      Perhaps because this situation is coming to a head just as a United Nations meeting on climate change is taking place in Milan, some people are describing it as a "crisis." But it is also possible to look at the prospective demise of the treaty as a wonderful political opportunity for the United States. The Bush administration may have been right to abandon the treaty, given its unrealistic targets and its failure to include developing nations such as China. But the president did so in a manner that almost seemed designed to offend the rest of the world. Mr. Bush now has the chance to reverse the world`s impression of the United States as bloated, polluting and selfish and to help ameliorate the effects of global warming at the same time.

      At the moment American diplomacy on this issue is not nearly vigorous enough. The administration`s stated approach -- to call for investment in new technologies that can reduce emissions -- isn`t inherently wrong, but it is incomplete. Newer, cleaner and cheaper technologies are needed, and the United States should help the rest of the world acquire them. But companies must have an incentive to invent such technologies as well as to install them. A new treaty containing more acceptable but nevertheless mandatory emissions targets for both industrialized and developing nations has to be part of the equation as well. Hard though it will be for this administration, some form of mea culpa -- or at least open acknowledgment that the United States has been rhetorically out of step with the rest of the world -- is necessary too. No one at this point will believe any American statements about climate change unless they come from the very top, and even then it will be difficult. In recent weeks, White House officials have been telling anyone who would listen that the president really is interested in climate change, and that he does care about lowering carbon emissions. The president should say so himself and seize this opportunity to rejoin the international debate.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 09:08:39
      Beitrag Nr. 10.060 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Why I Gave


      By George Soros

      Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A31


      I and a number of other wealthy Americans are contributing millions of dollars to grass-roots organizations engaged in the 2004 presidential election. We are deeply concerned with the direction in which the Bush administration is taking the United States and the world.

      If Americans reject the president`s policies at the polls, we can write off the Bush Doctrine as a temporary aberration and resume our rightful place in the world. If we endorse those policies, we shall have to live with the hostility of the world and endure a vicious cycle of escalating violence.

      In this effort, I have committed $10 million to America Coming Together, a grass-roots get-out-the-vote operation, and $2.5 million to the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a popular Internet advocacy group that is airing advertisements to highlight the administration`s misdeeds. This is a pittance in comparison with money raised and spent by conservative groups.

      Rather than a debate on the issues, there`s been a lot of name-calling by such groups as the Republican National Committee and the National Rifle Association. In an attempt to taint the groups I support and intimidate other donors, they imply that my contributions are illegitimate or that I have somehow broken the law.

      In fact, I have scrupulously abided by both the letter and the spirit of the law. Both America Coming Together and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund are "527" organizations -- referring to Section 527 of the tax code -- which are entitled to receive unlimited contributions from individuals. Both groups are fully transparent about their motives and activities. Both file detailed and frequent reports with government regulators.

      The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was an attempt to limit the influence that special interests can gain by financing candidates and to level the playing field between the two parties. My contributions are made in that spirit.

      President Bush has a huge fundraising advantage because he has figured out a clever way to raise money. He relies on donors he calls "Pioneers," who collect $100,000 apiece in campaign contributions in increments that fall within the legal limit of $2,000 a person, and on those he calls "Rangers," who collect at least $200,000.

      Many of these Pioneers and Rangers are corporate officials who are well situated to raise funds from their business associates, bundle them together and pass them along with tracking numbers to ensure proper "credit." They are buying the same level of access and influence for their corporate interests that they previously obtained with their own and corporate funds. With the help of Pioneers and Rangers, President Bush is on track to collect $200 million.

      To counter the fundraising advantage obtained by this strategy, I have contributed to independent organizations that by law are forbidden to coordinate their activities with the political parties or candidates. That law minimizes or eliminates the ability to purchase influence in exchange for my contribution. Moreover, I don`t seek such influence. My contributions are made in what I believe to be the common interest. ACT is working to register voters, and MoveOn is getting more people engaged in the national debate over Bush`s policies.

      I recognize that the system is imperfect, and I wish there were a different way to level the playing field. Making contributions to ACT and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund is the best approach I have found. I have been an advocate of campaign finance reform for almost a decade, including the legal defense of the current legislation. I recognize that every new regulation has unintended adverse consequences, but this does not mean reform should be abandoned.

      Clearly, the rules need to be updated in the light of the 2004 experience. Some good proposals have already surfaced, including one from the major sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This bill should be supported. Among other measures, it calls for an increase in the federal match for small contributions and would raise the spending limit for candidates who accept public funding to $75 million -- changes that would reduce the bias toward big-money donors. Free airtime for candidates is also important. This would reduce the cost of campaigns and the distorting effect of commercials.

      Full disclosure and transparency are clearly beneficial. It is important that people know where financial support is coming from. I have been open about my contributions, and I welcome the debate they have sparked. In the meantime, as the debate continues, my contributions help to ensure that the money spent on trying to reelect President Bush doesn`t overwhelm the process.

      The writer is chairman of the Soros Management Fund and author of "The Bubble of American Supremacy."



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 09:18:19
      Beitrag Nr. 10.061 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Fiddling While the Dollar Drops


      By David Ignatius

      Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A31


      Something ominous is happening when the United States reports its biggest surge in productivity in 20 years, as it did Wednesday, and yet the dollar plunges to an all-time low against the euro.

      The dollar is sinking these days on good news and bad, and the explanation is pretty simple: Investors around the world are worried that the Bush administration`s policies are eroding the value of the U.S. currency. So they`re rushing to unload greenbacks, in what could soon become a full-blown financial crisis.

      "The dollar crisis is the story," warns James Harmon, an investment banker who headed the Export-Import Bank during the Clinton administration. "A lot of smart money has moved out of the dollar in the last six months," he explains. "Now the latecomers are rushing to sell, and that`s adding to the momentum."

      The "smart money" includes financial guru Warren Buffett. He disclosed last month in Fortune that since the spring of 2002, he has been making "significant investments" in foreign currencies for the first time in his career. What worries Buffett is that the U.S. trade deficit has "greatly worsened," and is now running at more than 4 percent of GDP. That puts the U.S. economy at the mercy of foreigners, and their willingness to hold surplus dollars.

      So long as global investors believed that U.S. authorities were ready to protect the dollar as a reserve currency, they kept adding to their stashes of greenbacks, despite the trade deficit. But that confidence may finally be disappearing.

      The dollar`s decline during the Bush presidency has been remarkable. It has tumbled about 44 percent from its October 2000 high of about 83 cents to the euro. Over the past year alone, the decline has been more than 15 percent. Investors who trusted in the dollar as a store of value have been clobbered, so it`s not surprising that they want to sell, even at current depressed prices. They fear that worse is coming.

      "I`m appalled at what`s happening to the dollar," says investment banker Felix Rohatyn, a former U.S. ambassador to France. "A basic responsibility of a government is to maintain the value of its currency."

      Rohatyn argues that the Federal Reserve should signal that it "will not allow a dollar crisis to happen" by raising the Fed funds rate at which banks can borrow money overnight, from its current low level of 1 percent. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan insisted recently that there isn`t any dollar crisis, which only made some investors more nervous.

      If you haven`t already gagged on your raisin bran, consider this nightmare scenario -- outlined by an investment banker who for many years headed his firm`s currency-trading operations. This veteran trader contends that the markets have entered a cycle in which "overshooting" -- meaning a further sharp fall in the dollar`s value -- "is a distinct possibility."

      The core problem, he argues, is that China and Japan have been determined to keep their currencies cheap -- China by fixing the yuan at an artificially low level and Japan by intervening in exchange markets to keep the yen from rising. With their undervalued currencies, the Asians can export massively to the United States and accumulate ever-larger surpluses of dollars.

      Hence the nightmare scenario: Between them, China and Japan now hold more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, the trader estimates. But with the declining dollar, the Asian giants have suffered severe losses on these portfolios. If they decided to hedge just 20 percent of their dollar exposure, they could drive the dollar down from this week`s low of about $1.21 against the euro to $1.35, contends the trader, and other sellers would trigger a further weakening to $1.45 or so. Facing that sort of decline, the Fed would have to boost interest rates to protect the currency. And higher rates, in turn, would drive down the U.S. stock market.

      The Bush administration seems comfortable with a cheaper dollar because it`s a way of stimulating demand for American products abroad and sustaining the U.S. economic recovery. In other words, it`s good politics. But paradoxically, the U.S. recovery will only worsen pressure on the dollar by sucking in more imports.

      To prevent a full-blown crisis, the administration must take prompt action. It should pledge to cut the deficit; it should stop playing politics with free trade; and it should signal that it will intervene in currency markets when necessary to protect the dollar`s value. Those steps might convince global investors that somebody at the White House is at least minding the store.

      davidignatius@washpost.com



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 09:25:16
      Beitrag Nr. 10.062 ()
      http://www.flu-ent.com/fairandbalanced.htm
      Frische Cartoons sind noch nicht da.

      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 14:24:19
      Beitrag Nr. 10.063 ()


      FREEDOM ist ein registriertes Markenzeichen des Weißen Hauses.

      PRESIDENT`S SURPRISE THANKSGIVING REMARKS TO TROOPS DURING HIS BRAVE, 150-MINUTE, AFTER-DARK JAUNT TO THE MAXIMUM-SECURITY HEART OF THE "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" ZONE
      Remarks by the President to the Troops
      Baghdad Airport, Iraq
      THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! Thank you! It`s great to be here in Baghdad! Well, this impenetrable all-American Christian oasis that just happens to be in Baghdad, anyway.

      (Applause.)

      Hope my popping in for a few campaign photos isn`t too inconvenient, boys. Besides, I was looking for a warm Thanksgiving dinner that wasn`t cooked by the old ball and chain. Now don`t get me wrong – Laura`s Smoked Freedom Fowl is plenty tasty – but all the Parliament Menthol ashes in her gravy give me the Hershey Squirts something awful.

      (Laughter.)

      Now as you lowly grunts are no doubt acutely aware, today is Thanksgiving, a day when white Republicans with enough money and connections to get out of active combat duty gather comfortably in their sprawling homes to indulge in the uniquely American art of gluttony. On this day, we give thanks

      that Jesus saw fit to help us kill the Injuns and become the most powerful and super-superior nation on Earth. And this year in particular, we are also thankful that you military folk are here in Iraq, obediently following my orders to sink deeper into geopolitical quicksand so that America`s petrochemical industry can reap the rewards of 21st century imperialism.

      (Applause.)

      You know, now that I think about it, this is the second best Thanksgiving Day surprise I ever done pulled – after that one time back in `76 when my frat brother Ogre came down to Midland. After dinner, me and him got so wasted on Jägermeister that when Ogre was all "Hump the gobbler!", I was all "Bitchen!" Well you can just imagine the look on the Missus` face when she stumbled in for a refill and saw me, pants around my ankles, hooting and hollering as I showed that greasy, piping-hot hen carcass what it means to be loved by a real Bushman. Surprise, Pickles! Har, Har! But this here surprise, well, wow, man. I gotta hand it to Karl for cooking this one up.

      That is why today, I bring a message on behalf of America: we stand solidly behind our troops – no matter what. No matter that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. No matter that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No matter that Osama and Saddam are still at large, laughing at us. No matter that Afghanistan has been virtually abandoned and is slowly reverting back to Taliban control. And most of all, no matter that there`s no light at the end of the tunnel. Because when any true American says "I Support Our Troops" - what he`s really saying is, "GEORGE W. BUSH IS 100% PERFECT AND NEVER MAKES GINORMOUS MISTAKES AND TO EVEN SUGGEST OTHERWISE IS NO DIFFERENT FROM FLICKING A BOOGER IN THE OPEN MOUTH OF A CRIPPLED WAR HERO!"

      (Applause.)

      Speaking personally, I want to express my thanks to those few dozen of you enlisted folks who haven`t yet complained on camera to the hippy news media about what a big old clusterfuck this mission has turned into. You know, about how after squashing the Iraqi army and their fearsome arsenal of M-80`s and BB guns, absolutely nothing has gone anything like I said it would? I really do appreciate it. Fortunately, we can all be thankful that some voters are buying this neat-o new argument that we are fighting terrorists here instead of at home. Next year we`re applying this logic to the War on Drugs – by invading Argentina and killing their women and children before any more yummy cocaine finds its way back into the false bottom of my monogrammed Waterman fountain pen. All in the name of FREEDOM®!

      (Applause.)

      You know, as I was making my high speed corkscrew descent a few minutes ago under cover of night in my ultra-luxury 747, I couldn`t help but think how lousy it must be to not only be in this Mulamian armpit during daylight, but to also actually be exposed to genuine Iraqi rabble. And that, my friends, is precisely why I`m high-tailing it out of here this evening after only 150 minutes on the ground.

      (Applause.)

      In closing, I don`t know how many of you will survive to see your smiling faces in my potently narcotic campaign commercials, but hear me now: your blind loyalty will pay off in the long haul. By allowing me to emotionally molest you children on the day of the year when you are most vulnerable, when all you want is the warm embrace of family instead of a car bomb lotto ticket, you have given me an early X-mas present in the form of a sexy photo shoot that is politically bulletproof – something that your flak jackets and HumVees only sort of are.

      So smile pretty, because together, I will win in November – and that means the Southern Military Welfare State will continue to gorge on its nearly $400 Billion budget. So everybody wins – poor folks who depend on the armed forces for the money to theoretically go to school and improve their pathetic, tacky lots in life... and us Princes of New England, who rightfully lead just as we were born to. Lead from BEHIND the battle lines, mind you.

      OK, have the FOX boys in the custom-truncated news pool got the damned pictures yet? Good. Let`s hit the road.

      Achtung das ist eine Satire!!
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 14:30:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.064 ()
      Fair and Balanced™ Cartoons

      Cartoon Archive
      117 New Cartoons Today, zwischenzeitlich sind auch die 117 frischen Cartoons für heute eingetroffen:

      http://www.flu-ent.com/graveyard/20031205__117toons.htm



      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 14:54:00
      Beitrag Nr. 10.065 ()
      [/url]

      Walid Abdul Qadir, who lost four sons in the 1988 mass extermination, sits in the family’s residence in Shorish.
      A room in the former prison at Topzawa, the main concentration camp for Kurds before they were executed. The prison was looted soon after Saddam Hussein’s ouster.

      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-anfal5de…
      COLUMN ONE


      An Awful Truth Sinks In
      After years of hope, survivors of Iraq`s slaughter of Kurds now know the missing won`t be coming back. At least 100,000 died.
      By Richard C. Paddock
      Times Staff Writer

      December 5, 2003

      SHORISH, Iraq — For 15 years, thousands of Kurdish families waited for their loved ones to return. They believed the day would come when Saddam Hussein would fall, the prisons in the south would open and the missing would come home.

      But in the eight months since the Iraqi dictator was deposed, not a single person who disappeared during the Anfal military campaign of 1988 has returned alive.

      The truth was buried in the killing sands of Iraq.

      With Hussein gone from power, 263 suspected mass graves have been discovered, stretching from Mosul in the north to the remote deserts of the south. Many bodies were clad in the distinctive attire of the ethnic Kurds.

      For the first time, many Anfal survivors are facing an awful reality: Their missing family members were the victims of a mass extermination campaign — abetted by Kurdish collaborators — that echoes the Nazi killing machine in its efficiency and brutality. It left at least 100,000 people dead.

      Many of the missing were held just a few days before being loaded onto buses and driven into the desert. There, they were shot at night by waiting executioners and buried by bulldozers in shallow trenches.

      "We had hoped for 15 years," said Aysha Chachan Salih, 35, who lost her husband, three brothers, her home and all her possessions in the campaign. "But after Saddam fell, we knew they were not alive anymore."

      The word "anfal," taken from the Koran, means "spoils of war." The operation in Iraq`s north was designed to wipe out support for Kurdish rebels by eliminating broad swaths of the civilian population. For six months in 1988, Iraqi troops and Kurdish militias arrested the inhabitants of suspected rebel strongholds and destroyed thousands of villages. Males of fighting age were the main target, but many of the victims were also women and children.

      In some villages, entire populations were slaughtered. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled for their lives, abandoning all they had. Some survivors lost dozens of relatives. Kurdish officials estimate that 182,000 of their region`s 3.5 million people were slain during the offensive, but no one knows for sure. Iraq once admitted killing as many as 100,000 in the operation.

      In a landmark 1993 report, New York-based Human Rights Watch concluded that the campaign amounted to genocide against the Kurds. Yet unlike Bosnia-Herzegovina`s "ethnic cleansing" and Rwanda`s tribal massacres of the 1990s, the Anfal extermination received relatively little attention abroad during Hussein`s dictatorship.

      Despite rights activists` calls for action, no one has been prosecuted for the killings — not in an international tribunal or in the Kurdistan region, which won autonomy from Iraq in 1991 after U.S.-led troops invaded the country during the Persian Gulf War. Now U.S. and Iraqi officials say they expect to prosecute only the worst of Iraq`s war criminals and are considering whether to create a truth and reconciliation process to expose abuses of the past.

      Anfal survivors are among the Iraqis most grateful for Hussein`s downfall.

      "The Americans did well," said Amina Mohammed Aziz, 70, who lost four sons and all she owned in the Anfal campaign. "They freed people from terror and fear."

      The Anfal was a carefully planned, well-organized military operation. Hussein`s government kept detailed records, including communications between officers and names of the dead. Many incriminating documents were seized during the 1991 uprising against Hussein in which the Kurds won their autonomy. Many more records in Kurdistan have been recovered in recent months by U.S. and Iraqi authorities.

      "We are finding execution orders and lists of victims," said Brad Clark, an advisor to the U.S.-led coalition`s office of human rights. "The Iraqis documented everything they did. It was an incredibly arrogant attitude. They never thought anybody would check."

      The Anfal was headed by Hussein`s cousin Ali Hassan Majid, who went on to kill thousands more as Iraq`s defense minister. He earned the nickname "Chemical Ali" for his use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.

      Majid`s most notorious chemical attack killed an estimated 5,000 Kurds while the Anfal campaign was underway, although it was conducted as a separate operation. He is in U.S. custody and is expected to face charges related to the Anfal operation and other crimes against humanity.

      The Anfal was compartmentalized so that those involved — the soldiers, bus drivers, bulldozer operators, prison guards and executioners — knew only their own roles. Two Iraqi army corps and thousands of Kurdish militia fighters — known among Kurds as "mercenaries" — took part. The militias were essential to the success of the operation because they knew the terrain.

      The mercenaries usually entered the villages first and rounded up the victims — often with false promises that they would soon be released. As the remaining villagers fled, soldiers and mercenaries looted the houses and set them on fire, taking the livestock for themselves.

      "Without the mercenaries, the Anfal could not have taken so many people," said Arif Qurbani, a Patriotic Union of Kurdistan spokesman and author of "The Witness of Anfal," which contains substantial documentation. "They knew the area and they deceived people."

      Most of those arrested were taken to the prison camp at Topzawa, just outside the northern city of Kirkuk. There, men and boys ages 14 to 50 were separated from the women, children and older men.

      In the desert, groups of prisoners were tied at the wrist and shot with AK-47s while standing next to their freshly dug graves. Others were blindfolded and ordered to lie down in pairs in the bottom of a trench, then shot.

      Only a handful of intended victims escaped. One was a 25-year-old Kurd named Ozer, who helped organize a revolt as prisoners were unloaded from their bus. Most of the men were gunned down, but Ozer managed to hide beneath the bus and flee into the desert.

      "I passed only trenches filled with bodies," he later told Human Rights Watch. "I could tell what they were by the smell. I also saw many mounds made by bulldozers. The whole area was full of trenches with corpses."

      Thousands of elderly detainees, along with some younger women and children, were sent to the worst of Hussein`s prisons: Nugra Salman in the remote southern desert. The heat was overpowering and the inmates were fed a starvation diet of bread and contaminated water.

      Each day, prisoners would carry the dead into the desert for burial. Each night, wild dogs would dig up the bodies and eat them. Sherzad Salah was 13 when he was sent to the prison with his mother, Hanusha Hassan. His father and elder brother had been separated from them at Topzawa. His sister died at Nugra Salman, but his mother gave birth to another girl, wrapping her in clothes taken from the dead. The baby survived.

      "I remember that there wasn`t food," said Salah, now 28 and living in the bleak desert village of Fatah Homer. "I did not expect to make it. I saw too many people dying right next to us."

      In September 1988, Hussein declared an amnesty and the surviving Anfal prisoners were released. Reports of executions in the desert trickled back to the Kurdish north, but most survivors preferred to believe the rumors — perhaps spread by Hussein`s agents — that some of the missing had been seen in prisons and others shipped to nearby countries. The government of autonomous Kurdistan later helped keep hope alive by never declaring any of the missing dead.

      Most of the survivors were women, many thousands of whom have been prohibited from remarrying because no government has ever declared their husbands dead. Without husbands, homes or livestock, the Anfal widows were doomed to poverty. Some families returned to their villages and rebuilt their homes, barely scraping out a living.

      Others had no choice but to move to newly established "collective towns," such as Shorish, where they live in concrete-block hovels and take whatever menial jobs they can find.

      While the survivors struggled to rebuild their lives, many of the Anfal`s perpetrators did quite well for themselves — even in Kurdistan. In 1991, the mercenaries switched sides and supported the uprising against Hussein. In exchange, militia members received a blanket amnesty from the autonomous region`s government.

      "The amnesty was a very wise step," said Sheik Mohammed Basaki, 68, who has long commanded a Kurdish militia force but declined to discuss what he did during the Anfal. "By that amnesty, it gave them a clear heart to come back and fight."

      The mercenary soldiers were incorporated into the legendary peshmerga — "those who face death" — and the leaders received party positions. Some still hold jobs in the Kurdish parties that govern the region.

      "Some of them became high officials," said Qurbani, the party spokesman, "but an Anfal widow who had nothing still has nothing."

      Now, as U.S. and Iraqi officials prepare to bring some of Iraq`s worst criminals to trial, it is unclear how far down the chain of command they will go in seeking culpability in the Anfal.

      One top military commander unlikely to face charges is Sultan Hashim Ahmad Jabburi Tai, a former defense minister who surrendered to U.S. forces in September. The U.S.-led coalition has already granted him immunity in exchange for his cooperation.

      According to documents found in Iraqi files, Jabburi Tai was a major general who headed the army`s 1st Corps, one of the two main units that conducted the extermination campaign.

      Some Anfal survivors want revenge, especially against the mercenary leaders they say lied to them. "If I could, I would pile them all alive and burn them," said Hujara Walid, 30, who lost her four brothers in the Anfal.

      At Topzawa, there is no hint today that it was once Iraq`s most feared concentration camp. Used most recently as a military camp, it was stripped by looters within days of Hussein`s ouster, right down to its doors and windows.

      Soon after, Kurds who had been forced from the area in the late 1980s began returning. Finding their old homes destroyed, they moved into the camp.

      Among the returnees was Eimad Samad Ahmed, 24. He had heard of mass graves nearby and began looking for them. They were not hard to find. Less than a mile from the camp, he came across human remains in a mound of earth.

      "Everyone among our people knew there were mass graves here," he said. "I came and started digging and found bones. I became sick and spent two days at home."

      The mound extends three-quarters of a mile along the road, and officials believe it contains hundreds of bodies. During a recent visit, the bones and clothing of at least one victim were scattered on the ground. Officials say there are six more mass graves near Topzawa and two dozen elsewhere around Kirkuk.

      U.S. officials say teams of anthropologists will identify enough victims for evidence in war crimes trials, but there is no plan to identify all of the dead, a process that could take a decade.

      Though Anfal survivors have seen television reports of the mass graves, without the bones of their loved ones, some still cling to the hope that their husbands and fathers, sons and brothers will come home.

      "Since they haven`t told us whether they are alive or dead," said Hassan, the former prisoner who gave birth at Nugra Salman, "we will wait for them until we die."


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times


      Awaz Mohammad, 15, who lost her father and four uncles, cries as her family talks about the fate of the Anfal victims.
      Amin Mohammed Aziz, 70, lost her four sons in the 1988 Kurdish extermination in Iraq.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 15:01:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.066 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-afon…
      THE WORLD
      Das sind die Dinge, über die man sich scheinbar in den USA amüsiert.


      Uh, Folks, This Is the White House Again ...
      From Times Wire Services

      December 5, 2003

      WASHINGTON — The White House offered its third version Thursday of a story about a pilot who spotted Air Force One while it flew to Iraq, saying the British accent of a pilot had led the Air Force One crew to think it was a British Airways flight.

      The London area air traffic control center, known as the National Air Traffic Services, said Thursday that it was not a British Airways pilot who spotted the president`s plane, but it did not identify which airline was involved.

      "The pilot of the aircraft asked whether the aircraft behind was Air Force One," the London control center said in a statement released by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "After consulting the flight plan of those aircraft in the sector at that time, the center responded that the aircraft was a Gulfstream 5."

      The White House said Thursday that for security reasons, a falsified flight plan was filed identifying Air Force One as the Gulfstream, a much smaller plane.

      McClellan described the step as a reasonable security precaution for the surprise visit, which was made to boost the morale of U.S. troops.

      Federal Aviation Administration spokesman William Shumann, asked about the legality of filing an inaccurate flight plan, said, "We can`t discuss anything related to that flight."

      On Tuesday, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett had said a British Airways plane radioed the tower in London and reported the apparent sighting. Bartlett had earlier left the incorrect impression that the conversation took place between a British Airways pilot and the pilot of Air Force One, Col. Mark Tillman.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 15:03:58
      Beitrag Nr. 10.067 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-isin…
      THE WORLD



      Ex-General Says Israel Inflated Iraqi Threat
      Shlomo Brom asserts his nation`s spy agencies helped U.S. and Britain make case for war.
      By Laura King
      Times Staff Writer

      December 5, 2003

      JERUSALEM — A former senior Israeli military intelligence official asserted Thursday that the nation`s spy agencies were a "full partner" to the United States and Britain in producing flawed prewar assessments of Iraq`s ability to mount attacks with weapons of mass destruction.

      The sharply worded report by Shlomo Brom, a brigadier general in the army reserves, prompted one lawmaker to call for an independent inquiry into the performance of Israeli intelligence before the start of hostilities in Iraq.

      Until now, the role of Israeli intelligence agencies in assessing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein`s regime — and the subsequent failure so far by coalition investigators to find evidence of a chemical and biological weapons program that was an imminent threat — has been the subject of little public debate here.

      In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair has been hounded by domestic critics who say prewar intelligence on Hussein`s weapons program was either flawed or exaggerated — or both — in order to support President Bush`s decision to go to war.

      Bush also has faced criticism over the lack of proof that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, though the U.S. president has not been forced to expend nearly as much political capital as Blair in fending off contentions that the threat was deliberately distorted.

      Brom, a senior researcher at one of Israel`s leading think tanks, the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, said intelligence produced by Israel played a significant role in augmenting the case for toppling Hussein.

      "In the questioning of the picture painted by coalition intelligence, the third party in this intelligence failure — Israel — has remained in the shadows," he wrote. "And yet, Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq`s nonconventional capabilities."

      The Israeli intelligence agencies, Brom said, "badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons existed."

      Brom attributed the failure to professional lapses and misreading of important data, coupled with what he called a "one-dimensional perception" of Hussein by Israel`s intelligence-gathering agencies.

      Brom also cited a culture of "excessive intelligence anxiety," dating back to Israel`s failure, just before the Jewish state`s 1973 war with Syria and Egypt, to act on clear signs of an imminent Arab attack, with near-calamitous results. "Israeli intelligence agencies have tended to overstate the threat the country faces ever since," he wrote.

      Before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March, Israeli officials sent mixed signals to the public over the threat of a biological or chemical attack by Hussein`s forces. They described the likelihood of Israel being targeted as slight, yet the country was placed on a war footing. Jet fighters patrolled the skies 24 hours a day. Israelis were told to prepare "sealed rooms" in which they could take shelter in the event of attack. Children were sent off to school carrying gas masks.

      Many Israelis had vivid memories of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, during which Iraq lobbed 39 Scud missiles at Israel, none armed with a chemical or biological agent.

      Brom said that even if Iraq had any Scud missiles left, it was difficult to understand how professional intelligence-gatherers would perceive them as a threat to Israel, particularly after 10 years of disuse.

      Although Israeli military intelligence and the Mossad spy agency have suffered scandals and high-profile blunders in recent years, both are considered to be among the world`s premier intelligence operations. In his report, however, Brom expressed concern that as a result of mistakes regarding Iraq, foreign services might stop trusting information provided by Israel, thus hampering cooperation in the fight against terrorism.

      Brom`s article, which appeared in the Jaffee Center`s quarterly publication Strategic Assessment, prompted lawmaker Yossi Sarid to call for a parliamentary inquiry on prewar intelligence-gathering.

      Brom held senior positions in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years before retiring from the army in 1998.

      Traditionally, intelligence officers of his stature retain access to a great deal of sensitive information even after leaving active service.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 15:09:03
      Beitrag Nr. 10.068 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-confess…
      COMMENTARY



      Big Words and Big Oil Don`t Mix
      By Nicholas Confessore
      Nicholas Confessore is an editor of the Washington Monthly.

      December 5, 2003

      President Bush delivered a major address a few weeks ago about the American duty to promote liberty in the Middle East and to create conditions in which new democracies could flourish.

      "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," Bush said, "because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."

      The speech was provocative, not least because of what it said about our long-standing relationship with Saudi Arabia. Bush not only included Saudi Arabia as one of those countries that needed more reform, but in doing so he was also implicitly criticizing his own father for being too friendly with the repressive Saudi regime in exchange for military basing rights and a secure supply of cheap crude.

      Conservatives and liberals alike hoped that Bush might now be taking the more enlightened view that U.S. power had purposes beyond merely guaranteeing stability — and that his speech might signal a new, well-warranted toughness toward the Saudis` ruling oligarchy. But Bush`s recent nomination of James Oberwetter as ambassador to Saudi Arabia suggests that those hopes may have been misplaced.

      Oberwetter is a long-serving executive at Dallas-based Hunt Consolidated Inc., an energy conglomerate that owns Hunt Oil Co. In many respects, he is a natural choice for his new job. The Saudi potentates usually don`t care what the American ambassador has on his resumé, so long as the person has close ties to the president. And Oberwetter, who is active in Texas GOP circles, is not only friends with Bush but was a press secretary to his father when he was a member of Congress. Given Bush`s closeness with Texas energy interests and his top aides` distrust of the State Department, it`s no surprise that he`d rather have an oil executive in Riyadh than a career Foreign Service officer.

      Finally, Oberwetter also happens to be a lobbyist, which is in keeping with the Republican Party`s general shift toward entrusting federal policymaking to lobbyists for business interests with which the party is closely allied. If you`re going to ask energy lobbyists to craft federal natural resources policy — as the Bush administration`s energy task force did — why not let them handle foreign policy too?

      All these qualities make Oberwetter a conventional choice — unless you took seriously Bush`s speech. American ambassador-nominees are scrutinized by the host nation as a proxy for what kind of relationship the U.S. wishes to have with them. Oberwetter`s nomination tells the Saudis that it`s preservation of the status quo.

      Oberwetter did, of course, make all the right noises during his confirmation hearing last week, remarking on the importance of "moving forward for more public participation in [Saudi] processes" — that is, elections — and discussing "opportunities for freedom of religion." But he has no national security expertise, which is unfortunate given that the Saudis` penchant for funding anti-American terrorists is among the issues on the next ambassador`s agenda. Nor does Oberwetter have any history as a vigorous advocate of democratic change in the Middle East.

      He has spent nearly three decades in a business that prizes the stability provided by the likes of the Saudis. Indeed, in his capacity as a government affairs official — the guy charged with navigating his firm through the treacherous waters of Middle East politics — Oberwetter`s mission has in a sense been to avoid ruffling feathers.

      A single personnel move does not a foreign policy make. But if Oberwetter`s impending arrival in Riyadh is of any significance, it`s the wrong kind. Bush might have chosen, say, a former Republican member of Congress with demonstrated passion for democracy-building, like Bob Dole, who bucked many in his party by supporting Bill Clinton`s war in Kosovo. Or one of the many pro-democracy neoconservatives on whose advice Bush took a tough public stance in favor of Middle East reform.

      Instead, he picked an oil lobbyist. When it comes to Saudi Arabia, President Bush`s actions speak louder than his words.

      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 15:10:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.069 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cockbur…
      COMMENTARY



      Divided Iraq Would Be a Triple Threat
      It may seem like three different countries, but Iraqis historically have presented a united front.
      By Andrew M. Cockburn
      Andrew M. Cockburn, co-author of "Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein" (Perennial Press, 2000), was recently in Iraq on assignment for Smithsonian Magazine.

      December 5, 2003

      Iraqis tend to disagree about a lot of things, ranging from politics to literature to the best way of cooking the fish delicacy masguf. On one matter, however, they almost invariably present a united front: Iraq is one country, and they are Iraqis first and Sunnis or Shiites second. These days even Kurds find it politic to stress an Iraqi identity, and they are working hard to ensure that they will have a meaningful role in the new Iraq.

      Such nationalist unanimity inside Iraq stands in sharp contrast to the views of many outsiders, who point to the country`s history as evidence that it cannot work as a state. The reasons include: the fact that it was created a mere 80 years ago, when British colonial administrators combined three provinces of the Ottoman empire to create the country; the marked discrimination suffered over the years by the Shiites inhabiting the south; and the militant separatism exhibited by the Kurds at regular intervals.

      Amid the mounting woes of the U.S. occupation effort, recommendations have begun floating out from U.S. foreign policy mandarins to split Iraq into three pieces — Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish statelets — a proposal that would permit American forces to withdraw from the inhospitable Sunni triangle to the friendly Kurdish north and the Shiite south, where the oil is.

      "This is ridiculous," fumed Zuheir Hammadi, in a typical Iraqi response to such suggestions. Although he comes from a prominent Shiite family in the southern city of Nasiriyah, he said, "my wife is Sunni, my sister is married to a Sunni, my brother is married to a Sunni. Baghdad is half Shiite, half Sunni — what do they propose? Cut the city in half? Ethnic cleansing, like Yugoslavia?"

      Though the notion that Iraq is an "artificial" state may be convincing to detached observers, it does not stand up to serious examination. Most states are to some degree artificial, having been created by human design rather than some mysterious process of Mother Nature. The 1707 Act of Union that joined England and Scotland has provided one enduring example, as, of course, did the gentlemen who assembled in Philadelphia in 1787.

      Iraq`s multiethnicity is hardly unique. Neighboring Iran, for example, is a potpourri of Persians (who make up barely half the population), Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis and other minorities. Nor should too much be made of the "three separate Ottoman provinces" argument, given that from at least the 17th century, power over the whole territory has resided in Baghdad.

      The British who marched into Baghdad in 1917 believed that their new subjects were irredeemably disunited, but then were surprised in 1920 by a nationwide uprising by both Sunni and Shiite rebels that was suppressed at the cost of thousands of British dead. "The mistake we made in not adopting repressive methods earlier," wrote Gen. Alymer Haldane, the British military commander, threw "the Sunni townsmen and the Shiah countryfolk together."

      The British responded to this crisis, which they blamed primarily on the Shiite leadership, by installing a foreign king imported from what is now Saudi Arabia to rule over all three groups. And they fixed the constitution of "independent" Iraq so as to ensure rule by the Sunni minority. In the ensuing decades, Shiites found themselves shut out of power and, under Saddam Hussein and his clique of Sunni tribesmen, viciously repressed and massacred.

      Nevertheless, it is hard to find a Shiite who blames Sunnis as such for these misfortunes. "In Iraq there has never been a civil war, never [communities] fighting among themselves," said Hussein Shahristani, a veteran of Hussein`s dungeons who now advises the Shiite religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. "Iraq is a very old nation, multiethnic, multi-religious, multi-sectarian for many millennia."

      Violence against particular communities, he insisted, has always been the work of a dictatorial government rather than popular movements.

      Hostile powers have traditionally calculated that because it is divided, Iraq is easily subdued. Yet the armies of Iranian ruler Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini were fought to a standstill in the bloody Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s by Shiite infantry prepared to die for Iraq, just as their grandfathers had united with Sunnis against the British.

      Recent reports from Baghdad indicate that the occupation overseers now ensconced in Hussein`s old palace are intent on rejecting Shiite demands for electoral democracy, opting instead for rule by a more malleable authority that would be selected by the occupiers and their trusted Iraqi allies rather than elected by Iraqis at large. Nevertheless, L. Paul Bremer III, the U.S. civilian administrator, and his advisors would do well to remember that standing in the way of nationalist fervor can be a tricky business. He should consider the anthem sung by the rebel alliance in the great 1920 uprising:

      "Set the fire, you noble Iraqis, and wash the flame with flowing blood … you are not prisoners to submit your shoulders to the chains."


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 15:23:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.070 ()


      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 15:27:07
      Beitrag Nr. 10.071 ()
      U.S. Adds 57,000 Jobs in November, Jobless Rate Falls (Update1)
      Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. jobless rate fell in November to 5.9 percent, the lowest since March, and the economy added 57,000 jobs. The increase in payrolls fell short of the median forecast, suggesting companies are adding just enough workers to meet demand.

      ``Generally the job picture is positive but it`s not robust at this point,`` said Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, in a radio interview with Bloomberg News.

      The unemployment rate fell from 6 percent in October, the Labor Department said in Washington. The fourth straight gain in payrolls would have been greater if not for 23,000 jobs lost at grocery stores because of strikes, the department said.

      Some companies are starting to add workers to help meet orders after the economy grew last quarter at the fastest face in 19 years. Democratic rivals trying to push President George W. Bush out of the White House next year have criticized him for the loss of more than 2.6 million manufacturing jobs since he took office.

      Economists had expected payrolls would rise by 150,000 following a previously reported increase of 126,000 in October, based on the median of 67 forecasts in a Bloomberg News survey.

      Demand for Treasuries increased after the report tempered speculation the Federal Reserve would soon drop its stated commitment to keep borrowing costs low for a ``considerable period.`` The benchmark 10-year Treasury due in November 2013 rose 3/4 point, pushing its yield down 10 basis points to 4.27 percent at 8:52 a.m. in New York.

      Interest Rates

      ``As far as the Fed is concerned, this is really the best report they could have asked for,`` said Christopher Low, chief economist at FTN Financial Inc. in New York. ``They clearly have no intention of raising rates anytime soon, but they have started coming under criticism, especially in the fixed-income universe, for leaving rates unchanged. A weak payroll number buys them time.``

      The total number of jobs added in the prior two months was revised to 236,000, 15,000 less than the government previously estimated.

      The unemployment rate was lower than the median forecast of 6 percent in the Bloomberg survey. The government`s poll of households that measures that rate showed employment grew by 589,000 last month, pushing down the rate. The number of payroll jobs added is determined by a separate survey of companies.

      ``We are going to see steady improvement through 2004,`` said Bill Natcher, an economist at National City Corp. in Cleveland. ``Corporate profits are improving and we are going to see companies invest more in human capital`` next year. Natcher had forecast a gain of 52,000 jobs, the fewest of any economist surveyed by Bloomberg.

      Services, Manufacturing

      Employment in service-producing industries, which include retailers, banks and government agencies, rose by 64,000 last month after a 145,000 increase the previous month. The rise was led by education and health-care services, which added 34,000 positions.

      Last weekend, consumers ``were shopping and they were spending money,`` said Bob Sasser, chief operating officer of Dollar Tree Stores Inc., in a televised interview with Bloomberg News this week. ``We have staffed up and we have more people in our stores to do all this business. Sasser will become chief executive of Virginia Beach, Virginia-based Dollar Tree, the largest U.S. seller of goods that cost about $1, on Jan. 1.

      Manufacturers lost 17,000 jobs last month, the 40th straight monthly decline. Factory job losses have averaged 17,000 a month since August, compared with a decline of 53,000 a month in the year ended in August. The manufacturing workweek rose to 40.8 hours from 40.6 in October and overtime increased to 4.4 hours, the most since January, from 4.3 hours.

      Hours and Incomes

      Average weekly hours worked for all employees rose to 33.9 in November from 33.8 the prior month, matching the median Bloomberg survey forecast.

      Incomes increased last month. Workers` average hourly earnings rose 0.1 percent, or 1 cent, after a 0.1 percent increase the previous month. Economists had expected a 0.2 percent increase in hourly wages. Average weekly earnings rose to $524.09 from $522.21 in October.

      Some 70,000 grocery-store workers in California and three other states have been on strike or locked out of their jobs since Oct. 11. The Labor Department asks businesses to count as employed anyone on the payroll during the pay period including the 12th of each month. The strikers dropped out of the November payroll count after being included in the October totals, said economists including Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh.

      Economic Growth

      ``It`s a one-month pause and the real underlying trend is what this is adjusted for strikers,`` Hoffman said before the report.

      The economy expanded at an 8.2 percent annual rate from July to September, the fastest since the first three months of 1984 and more than double the 3.3 percent rate of this year`s second quarter.

      President Bush won tax cuts from Congress earlier this year and the Federal Reserve has held its benchmark interest rate at the lowest since 1958 to stimulate job creation and spur the economy. The Fed may keep the overnight bank lending rate at 1 percent when policy makers meet Tuesday, according to the unanimous prediction of 61 economists in a Bloomberg survey.

      More manufacturers are reporting the order backlogs are rising than at any time since March 2002, while the number of those unable to make deliveries on time reached the highest since December 1999, a report from the Institute for Supply Management showed Monday.

      Orders Up

      ``We`re continuing to see good results in terms of our order books, and the communications with our major customers are as optimistic as they`ve been in some time,`` said Bob Ratliff, chief financial officer of Ipsco Inc., a maker of tubular steel used by oil and natural-gas companies, this week.

      Because of the higher demand, Ipsco has added a fourth daily work shift at several of its U.S. and Canadian tubular units. ``We have actually been hiring primarily as it relates to our energy tubular business in western Canada and also here in the U.S.,`` Ratliff said.

      Shipping delays at non-manufacturing companies, which account for 85 percent of the economy, increased for a seventh month, a separate report from the purchasing managers` group showed this week.

      Measures of consumer confidence reflected a brighter employment outlook last month. Confidence in November reached the highest in more than a year as the percentage of people who said jobs would become increasingly hard to find fell and the percentage of people expecting their incomes to improve rose, according to a report last week from the Conference Board, a New York research group.

      Among blacks, the unemployment rate fell to 10.2 percent from 11.5 percent in October. The jobless rate for Hispanics rose to 7.4 percent from 7.2 percent, and for whites the rate rose to 5.2 percent from 5.1 percent.

      For teenagers, unemployment dropped to 15.5 percent from 17.1 percent. The jobless rate for women dropped to 5.1 percent from 5.2 percent. The jobless rate for men rose to 5.7 percent from 5.6 percent.

      Last Updated: December 5, 2003 09:10 EST
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 15:33:19
      Beitrag Nr. 10.072 ()
      The Hot Porn Of Pottery Barn
      Think Abercrombie & Fitch is racy? You haven`t seen these naked, nubile coffee tables
      By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
      Friday, December 5, 2003
      ©2003 SF Gate

      URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/12/05/notes120503.DTL

      Und hier die Bilder aus dem sogefährlichen, sexy Katalog:
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.cgi?object=/gate/pictur…


      Here it comes again, another dumbly predictable, panicky little outcry from terrified parents` groups and petrified dads all aflutter over the recent sexed-up, "racy" Abercrombie & Fitch catalog, just in time to stuff your proverbial stocking.

      You know the one, that new A&F Christmas catalog that dared to go so far as to show actual young half-naked models laying around in half-naked splendor doing half-naked nothing much. Same as it ever was.

      But wait -- nudity? Group sex? Orgies? Specific directions for gang masturbation techniques, all appearing in a mediocre clothing catalog aimed squarely at ineptly dressed Stanford undergrads who have free access to Dad`s Visa? Whatever is the world coming to? And who, pray who, will save the children?

      I mean, whatever happened to the innocent and tantalizing catalogs of yore, like the 4-inch-thick Sears tome with its countless pages of busty bra models who looked like your best friend`s mom?

      Whatever happened to fantasizing all the way through the panty selection in the JCPenney catalog? What happened to innocence and virtue in mail-order advertising?

      Yeah, right. Softcore is, of course, where you find it. And one person`s "offensive" is another`s "barely naughty enough to arouse a Catholic priest." The hypocrisy of these parents is palpable. Bring me lots of photos of frumpy baby boomers happily munching $20 Harry & David pears so that I may rinse my poor singed eyeballs!

      Meanwhile, Abercrombie is thrilled. The latest round of reactionary screeching is exactly the outcry they were counting on, as they yank the sexy catalog from the shelves just as the news of its raciness hits the media, thus resulting in an instant wave of interest among their target market: a.k.a., those youths who simply love it when parents get all pissy and fumy about interesting types of sex they no longer have.

      Is Ambercrombie softcore porn? Is it really? Is it really all that much more dangerous or damaging to nubile young minds than, say, Pottery Barn Kids? Let us ponder. Let us compare.

      Let us now gander at, say, the latest Williams-Sonoma catalog. Here is, quite simply, 160 pages of pure kitchen-fetish smut, raw and glossy and openly explicit, all gleaming $400 KitchenAid blenders and wickedly overpriced stainless steel All-Clad cookware and gorgeously photographed slabs of steaming gourmet meats being perfectly sliced with spotless $200 Wusthof knives. Mmm yeah, baby. Do it to me just like that.

      And over here, it`s the latest mail-order offering from Pottery Barn. Oh my yes. Page after page of softcore earth-toned lifestyle porn for those who can`t afford actual designer furniture but who seem to have an undying fetish for picture frames and votive candles and faux-antique mass-produced hardwood rollaway desks.

      And all that`s missing from these shots is the girl in the Garnet Hill catalog sweater who will refuse to have sex with you on the Pottery Barn slipcovered sofa lest she wrinkle her J. Jill catalog skirt and knock the Crate & Barrel vanilla pillar candle over.

      The Abercrombie catalog is, by the way, not sold to anyone under 18. It has a cover warning of "Mature content." No actual terrified oversheltered children were in any way harmed or exposed or even lightly tickled in the photographing or marketing of its pages.

      No matter. Still, Michael Kieschnick, president of Working Assets and chairman of some scary-sounding overbearing thing called Dads and Daughters, thinks Abercrombie is trying to openly molest his young girl, who has, presumably, never even seen the catalog and is probably too young to buy it and if she is, in fact, over 18 and she`s into happy yuppie group masturbation, well, it`s really none of his damn business. Just a thought.

      Still, Maryam Kubasek of the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families (hello, red flag of rigid sanctimony) apparently thinks the catalog is literally capable of stripping her young son naked and plying him with massage oil and anal beads and a nice Burntbridge Pond Striped Polo shirt with moose embroidery for $39.99. Oh the horror.

      Oh hell, let`s just spell it out: All major catalogs are softcore porn. Just because they lack nude postcoital models does not make them any less explicit or depraved. All are unabashed fetishy lifestyle whores and all attempt to showcase their wares in impossibly perfect situations for impossibly perfect people with impossibly perfect teeth leading impossibly perfect lives.

      Of course sex and orgies and masturbation have nothing to do with selling yuppie clothes. This is what the parents groups pule.

      Then again, this is complete B.S. -- sex has absolutely everything to do with selling clothes, because just under the surface of it all, clothes are only silly shallow vanity-based things we adorn ourselves with for no other reason than to appear attractive and interesting to the world and to our lovers and families and friends and really hot waitresses. We want to look cute. And sexy. Or at least presentable. Because we want to get laid.

      And if you say this is not the reason you buy clothes, you are either lying your ass off or you are sadly disinterested in physical appearances, or you are past the age or the marriage status where you care about sex or fashion or how those jeans make your ass look, and therefore you are not even on Abercrombie`s radar.

      Should we now talk of the upscale decorator porn of the Gump`s catalog? What about the weird overpriced parenting porn of Hanna Anderssen? The uber-cheesy gay Eurostud porn of International Male?

      Or what of the super-rich diamond-encrusted ultra-slick porn of the Neiman Marcus catalog, packed with all those untouchable preening fur-clad mistresses descending the steps of your new Lear jet? Why are uptight parents` groups not horrified at this raunchy display?

      It`s all the same. It`s all manufactured desire and imitation lust and a boatload of tasty crap you don`t really need but they make you crave madly, the way a 14-year-old schoolgirl pines for Orlando Bloom in a blond wig.

      Note to scrunchy parents: I`d be far, far more worried about what, say, Kraft is selling to your kids in all those millions of boxes of toxic and openly poisonous Kraft Lunchables than about some quasi-sexy yuppie-fashion catalog they never even see. But that`s just me.

      Oh, but here. Here is the safe, saccharine J. Crew catalog, all bland white former sorority girls and carefully emasculated boys and a smattering of safe black persons, all with incredibly clean teeth and nifty haircuts and big happy smiles playfully tossing snowballs at each other in their new J. Crew scarves, only $29.99. Oh yes, that`s much better.

      And here we have the L.L. Bean catalog, featuring those exact same J. Crew models about 10 years later, doing the exact same smiley snowbound activities, only with more gray hair and a higher credit limit and less sexual activity and lots more monogrammed luggage. How disturbing. I feel sort of violated just looking at it.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.

      Subscribe to Mark`s deeply skewed, mostly legal Morning Fix newsletter.
      Mark Morford`s Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate, unless it appears on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which it never does. He also writes the Morning Fix, a deeply skewed thrice-weekly e-mail column and newsletter. Subscribe at sfgate.com/newsletters.

      ©2003 SF Gate
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 15:42:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.073 ()











      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 17:56:08
      Beitrag Nr. 10.074 ()
      Manuel Valenzuela: `The unseen war: Resistance and the reality of Bush`s Iraq`
      Posted on Friday, December 05 @ 10:24:36 EST
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      By Manuel Valenzuela

      Contrary to White House, Pentagon and corporate media propaganda, Iraq today is an amalgam of Saddam loyalists, a few foreign fighters and an ever-growing number of ordinary civilians joining what Bush calls "terrorists" but that in reality are nationalists and insurgents fighting a resistance against our Iraqipation. To Iraqis and the rest of the world, they would be called "freedom fighters," much like the ones clandestinely trained, supplied and supported by the United States in their resistance against the Soviets in 1980`s Afghanistan.

      They are modern day Iraqi mujahedeen, similar to the Afghan resistance fighters we at one time thought so highly enough of that we romanticized them in movies, books and in Beltway conversation. Among those freedom fighters, it must be remembered, was included one Osama bin Laden. From CIA trained freedom fighter to evildoer terrorist, all thanks to our government and all thanks to our jihad-inciting Middle East policies.



      Today we are the new version of the Soviets, a new breed of Crusader invading Arab land, bringing not the cross and the sword but smart bombs and crony capitalism. The neoconartist Pax Americana dream of world domination through bogus democracy and destructive capitalism has been unleashed, pointing missiles and guns at the Mideast, marching us to war, making both us and the world a much more dangerous place, where the only "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" will come as a result of our own chest-beating cause and effect actions.

      Today one man`s terrorist is another`s freedom fighter. For the Bush administration, fighting against it, its allies or its interests will automatically get you labeled with the former, while among your people, fighting against US foreign policy and for freedom from its omnipresent tentacles will designate you a heroic patriot, a valiant martyr and a champion warrior. To Bush, it is patriotic for American revolutionaries to throw tea into the sea, revolt, kill and start guerilla war against their oppressors, but if Iraqis or anyone else tries the same, the now old, saturated and fear engendering-word "terrorist" is recycled and used yet again to brainwash the masses. This is nothing but a marketing ploy designed by those in power so that the American people cringe in fear and alarm at the sound of the word "terrorist," which has been implanted over and over in their minds and which immediately conveys images of "evildoers" and 9/11. Like Pavlovian dogs, we have been trained well to respond to our masters` wishes. Fear is thus used to acquire submission, passivity, ignorance and acquiescence from us all. Iraq, it must be remembered, had nothing to do with Al Qeada. Their struggle against us has nothing to do with 9/11 or bin Laden and everything to do with resistance to occupation.

      What the Bush administration cannot seem to grasp is that our Iraqipation is reviled in the country and throughout the Arab world. Perhaps the first obvious hint of this is the fact that Iraqis did not welcome us with arms extended as liberators, showering us with perfumed flowers and manna from heaven as the neoconartists, in their delusion of grandeur expected, but rather as an extension and indeed a mechanism of all those conquering entities that had come before, most notably the Turks of the Ottoman Empire and the English of the last century.

      Ordinary Iraqis are not stupid, ignorant fools like those in the administration who concocted this failed experiment with "diraqcracy" seem to think. They smartly noticed that as American troops stormed Iraq, out of the dozens of Ministry buildings in Baghdad only the Ministry of Oil was protected by soldiers during the famous looting that took place during the first weeks of the war. Also, only the vast oil fields scattered throughout the country were secured while all that was sacred in the vast history of the Fertile Crescent was left to looting, pillage and destruction. It was pretty obvious what the conquering invaders were after.

      Iraq`s citizens also remember Saddam as an American puppet in the 70`s and 80`s, shaking hands and meeting with non other than Donald Rumsfeld in a friendly exchange of ideas and products, oil for WMDs. These are the same WMD`s Bush can`t seem to find twenty years later and whose use our government gave the thumbs up to in Iraq`s war against Iran. Iraqis no doubt still recollect America`s willingness to abandon and sacrifice the Iraqi insurrection against Saddam in the immediate aftermath of Gulf War I, even after we wholeheartedly supported and encouraged it. That failed attempt at toppling Saddam led to the mass graves of 200,000 to 300,000 cadavers that today the Bush administration points to as reason for invading and occupying Iraq.

      Of course we shouldn`t forget the decade of harsh collective punishment and economic genocide called UN sanctions, meticulously blessed, endorsed, supported and safeguarded by our government, that led to an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children deaths and to the deaths of countless tens of thousands more whose only crime was to be Iraqi. The Iraqis, it can be assured, have not forgotten. To many of them, Saddam was no doubt a murdering tyrant but we are much worse; we are evildoers, the real "terrorists," interested not in saving Iraqis but in securing both rich oil fields to quench our monstrous addiction for fuel and strategic locations from which to conduct perpetual warfare and impose American supremacy both in the Mideast and Central Asia. To many in the Arab world, we are the "Evil Empire," the "Great Satan," and many of our actions and policies give credence to this belief. To deny this truth is to deny reality.

      Presently, the occupation, with its harsh treatment, numerous innocent civilian deaths, unevenhandedness and cultural insensitivities of Iraqis is creating more enemies than friends. The flowers our leaders blissfully and naively expected upon our triumphant entry as liberators have turned into clenched fists, RPGs and AK-47s, where only dead and wounded soldiers land at our feet. We have imported into the desert dunes cookie-cutter factories of resentment, hatred, animosity and revenge. This war to "liberate" has already resulted in more than 10,000 civilian deaths, each converting once peace-loving families and tribes into calculating seekers of revenge.

      Every innocent dead Iraqi at the hands of our soldiers and our bombs, every home destroyed, crop razed, or humiliating act done against the populace is spawning a web of resistance that is growing and getting stronger, uniting against the occupiers who are building permanent bases for strategic interests, sucking Iraq`s precious natural resource out of the desert sands and making rich American corporations at the expense of every Iraqi man, woman and child. The battle for securing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is over, and "our side" has been soundly defeated, all thanks to the Bush administration`s incompetence and yearning for profiteering.

      Let`s not live in our little escapist Hollywood world anymore folks. What we are seeing is the inevitable movement common to all occupations throughout history, namely the urge by the native population to resist an invading alien force intent on conquering man, resources and land. It is the drive for freedom all native peoples yearn for when they are confronted by a more powerful nation and army. Like many before, the Iraqi people are now dominated by a force alien to their beliefs, culture, religion and interests. They feel like prisoners in their own land, subject to American rule, humiliated and oppressed, and, already having experienced occupation and colonization by foreign powers, do not like being subjugated and having their collective destinies decided by Washington and its puppet collaborators. Think about it, if the US was suddenly and militarily occupied by an invading force many of us would resist and fight to expel it from our land. It is human nature; no population throughout time holds a monopoly on it.

      In the natural progression of an occupation, the resistance continues to grow as more and more people become aware of what is being done to them and their land. The resistance knows it cannot defeat the monstrously powerful American army head on, but it can chip away at it little by little until its will and that of its people dwindles, until pressure is so intense on the leadership that it cracks. Like a growing storm, the Iraqi resistance, well armed, knowing the terrain, the people, its culture and language, and, more aware of what the lessons of history teach than its adversary, is becoming more powerful, more dangerous and more committed than ever. Its numbers continue to swell and its fighting spirit continues to skyrocket. This is the reality Bush does not want you to know, and the reason we can see his panic in the hastily decided new policies being implemented today. Iraqification equals desperation, especially in a re-election year and when the administration`s fantasy gives way to a neocon bubble-bursting reality that is the Iraqi quagmire today.

      The United States is dealing with a resistance that knew all along it could not compete technologically, militarily nor economically on the desert planes or in urban warfare. Instead, it decided to play by its own rules, and today full-blown guerilla warfare is upon our men and women, striking them down one by one. The resistance is shadows, everyone and no one at the same time. It is as present as Mesopotamian sand and as unseen as its winds. It is as deadly as desert scorpions crawling through the night. It is under rocks, inside flora and in numerous homes and streets, ready to strike and fight stealthily and without warning. It will soon be everywhere, transforming itself into night and again back to day. Sadly, our troops will continue to fall, their energy swept away by sandstorms of explosives and bullets.

      Our so-called leaders cry foul because they do not play by our rules, because this wasn`t what was supposed to happen. But the resistance plays with what it has, and, in the span of three months, has inflicted more death and injury unto American forces than at any time since Vietnam. It has neutralized the strongest and most powerful army in the world, rendering it susceptible to attack on a daily basis, not knowing who or what the enemy is or where it hides. No made-for-Americans, Hollywood-produced Iron Hammer production can change that. Our leaders were duped. Their arrogance and ignorance have created a monument to inefficiency that will lead to their demise. Mr. Bait-And-Switch Bush, meet Mr. Rope-A-Dope Iraq.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 17:58:01
      Beitrag Nr. 10.075 ()
      This article can be found on the web at
      http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031222&s=stam


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Bush`s Religious Language
      by JUAN STAM

      [from the December 22, 2003 issue]

      George W. Bush began to take part in a Bible study group in 1985, after two decades of binge drinking. For two years he studied the Scriptures and put his heavy drinking behind him. In that same process, he succeeded in refocusing his life, which had been diffused and confused, into a coherent cosmic vision--or ideology--which corresponded to the mentality of the conservative evangelicals of his country.

      When Bush decided to run for office, political strategist Karl Rove helped him make the link with the evangelical sector. While other candidates were discussing polemical themes, Rove advised him that it was much better for him to simply speak about his faith. Bush presented himself as "a man with Jesus in his heart." When a reporter asked him who his favorite philosopher was, Bush replied: "Christ, because he changed my heart." That corresponded perfectly to the extreme individualism of fundamentalism, and it constituted what in the metalanguage of evangelical code words is called "personal witness."

      Politically, Bush`s discourse has been very effective, but theologically the results have been more problematic, as evident in particular in three areas.

      Manicheism This ancient heresy divides all of reality in two: Absolute Good and Absolute Evil. The Christian church rejected Manicheism as heretical many centuries ago. But on the day after 9/11, the President first stated the position he would continue to maintain: "This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail." Later Bush defined his enemies as the "axis of evil," a term that is theologically and morally loaded.

      Given that state of sublime innocence in his own country, like Adam and Eve in paradise, Bush can muster only one explanation for the terrorists` hatred of his nation: "There are people who hate freedom." In other words, they are so evil that they abhor the good because it is good. (But if the terrorists hate freedom, why have they not attacked Canada, which in some respects is more democratic than the United States? Why is there not the same hatred for Switzerland, Holland or Costa Rica?)

      Messianism When Bush, then Governor of Texas, decided to seek the presidency, he described his decision in terms evangelicals would understand as a divine mandate: He had been "called," a phrase that evoked the prophetic commissions of the Hebrew scriptures. He summoned to the governor`s mansion all the leading pastors of the region to carry out a ritual of "laying on of hands," a practice that corresponds above all to ministerial ordination. He told the pastors that he had been called (obviously, by God) to be the presidential candidate. This language of divine calling has been frequent in his declarations and at a much accelerated rhythm since September 11, 2001.

      In his State of the Union address the following year, Bush reaffirmed that "history has called America and our allies to action." Soon after the 9/11 attacks, speaking to a joint session of Congress, he proudly declared that "the advance of human freedom--the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time--now depends on us." As he declared in his 2003 State of the Union address, the nation must go forth to "confound the designs of evil men," because "our calling, as a blessed country, is to make the world better." "Once again," Bush announced as war preparation was building up, "this nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility...and we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country."

      Bush does not seem to have much hesitation in identifying God with his own project. In a speech in September 2002, Bush cited a Christological text in reference to his war project: "And the light [America] has shone in the darkness [the enemies of America], and the darkness will not overcome it [America shall conquer its enemies]." When he appeared in a flight suit aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, he said to the troops: "And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope--a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, `To the captives, come out! to those who are in darkness, be free!`"

      Manipulation of Prayer True prayer does not pretend to tell God what we want Him to do but rather asks that God tell us what He wishes us to do. We do not pray in order to enlist God in our ranks but to examine ourselves, to change and to do God`s will. Therefore, the confession of sin and repentance are crucial moments in prayer and worship. Prayer has played a role without precedent in the Bush presidency and in the propaganda of the evangelicals who support him. Photos of Bush at prayer are common. Great publicity was given to the fact that during a prime-time news conference shortly before his speech giving the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, Bush asked his advisers to leave him alone for ten minutes. In evangelical symbolism, that meant that a man of prayer was going to commune with God, somewhat like Moses on Mount Sinai.

      It is remarkable how closely Bush`s discourse coincides with that of the false prophets of the Old Testament. While the true prophets proclaimed the sovereignty of Yahweh, the God of justice and love who judges nations and persons, the false prophets served Baal, who could be manipulated by the powerful. Karl Marx concluded that religion is "the opium of the people." But Marx never knew committed Christians like Camilo Torres of Colombia, Oscar Arnulfo Romero of El Salvador, Frank Pais of Cuba, Ernesto Cardenal of Nicaragua, Dietrich Bonhoeffer of Germany or Martin Luther King Jr. of the United States. How paradoxical, and how sad, that the President of the United States, with his heretical manipulation of religious language, insists on proving Karl Marx right.

      Translated by Thomas E. Ambrogi. A longer version (available at servicioskoinonia.org/logos) appeared in Signos de Vida.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 18:08:24
      Beitrag Nr. 10.076 ()
      Thursday, December 04, 2003


      http://www.kurtnimmo.com/blogger.html

      Bush Ministry of Disinformation Editor Gets "Freedom" Medal

      There are two departments in the Bush Ministry of Disinformation: one for plebian lowbrows who don`t like the read - the Fox News Channel - and another for effete reactionary highbrows who enjoy newspaper ink on their fingers - the Wall Street Journal, or more appropriately the War Street Journal since the rag has repeatedly called for mass murder in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

      It was no big surprise when Bush awarded former War Street Journal editor and now editor emeritus Robert Bartley with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which should, for the sake of accuracy, be renamed the Dictator Medal of Mindfuck, since that`s what Bartley, a far rightwing ideologue, has done to the American people, or those who read the War Street Journal, anyway.

      Bartley`s hatred of everything progressive and even mildly liberal stretches back to the 60s. In fact, as David Walsh points out (apparently, these days, it takes a socialist to notice these kind of things), Bartley "developed a pathological hatred for the radicalism of the 1960s and lays virtually all of the evils of the world at its door," including the murder of abortion doctors.

      "We think it is possible to identify the date when the United States ... began to tip off the emotional tracks," the War Street Journal editorialized. "The date is August 1968 when the Democratic National Convention found itself sharing Chicago with the street fighters of the anti-Vietnam War movement."

      In other words, Democrats and wizened antiwar demonstrators are responsible for the murders committed by the antiabortion lunatic fringe, as if the two groups were, according to the shills at the War Street Journal, joined at birth and shared the same ideology.

      In truth, the demented people who gun down abortion doctors are ideologically in sync with far right Reaganite nutcases such as Bartley and their crackpot evangelical Christian Zionist friends.

      Thanks to this year`s recipient of the Dictator Medal of Mindfuck, dictionaries now carry the odious term "supply-side economics."

      Supply-side isn`t really an economic theory per se, unless you consider stealing money from the poor to lavish the fat-ass rich with tax "breaks" an economic theory.

      The quasi-theory of supply-side economics can accurately be considered Bartley`s baby. "Without Bartley and his newspaper, supply-side economics would have been stillborn," right-winger Robert Novak proclaimed from the pages of the neocon house organ, the Murdoch-financed Weekly Standard. Murdoch, of course, also owns the lowbrow neocon propaganda mouthpiece, Fox News.

      Due in large part to Bartley and other so-called conservatives, supply-side thievery created not only the worst income inequality in the developed world, but also skyrocketing rates of child poverty and misery. Bartley knows tax cuts do not inspire the stinking rich to invest in the economy, but quite the opposite - instead, they "invest" in their shamelessly affluent lifestyles. But then self-aggrandizement and pilfering the social till is what the Reaganite far right is all about.

      As Bartley likely understands, more money in the hands of less people encourages the concentration of political power, a good deal for the stinking rich. "Even if aggregate income and wealth are growing, as they become more unequally distributed, those few in whose hands economic means are being concentrated gain greater relative potential political influence," explains Prof. Lloyd J. Dumas of the University of Texas.

      In other words, supply-side economics eventually abrogates democracy and leads to a plutocratic form of government, i.e., the rich bastards lording over those of lesser means.

      Madison understood this swindle and that`s why he argued for the establishment of checks and balances to offset the "aggregate interests of the community," in other words those folks who Adam Smith realized would conspire against humanity at large for financial gain, in short predatory animals that engage in criminal behavior, i.e., sociopaths.

      Moreover, as David Walsh explains, supply-side is a "right-wing political perspective and a rationale for deepening social inequality. The emergence and sudden respectability of supply-side economics in the 1980s betokened the rejection by a substantial part of the establishment of the social reformist consensus that had dominated American politics since World War II."

      So, not only does supply-side allow the rich to greedily stack money up like cordwood, it is also warfare directed squarely against social programs Bush`s former Reaganite controllers loathe and are determined to completely eliminate. They will do this by running up a trillion-dollar deficit each year for the next five years. They will tell you they are doing this to protect you from "terr`ism," as our unelected president would have it, but this is yet another Straussian deception.

      According to a Brookings Institution study, Dubya`s militarism will necessitate 40 percent cut in spending on discretionary programs over the next decade. Add to this $1.6 trillion in tax giveaways to the stinking rich through 2010 and, as Bush has promised, close to $2 trillion by 2013, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and you have a recipe for whittling down the middle class permanently.

      Bartley and the "more extreme Republicans," as London`s Financial Times calls them -- over on this side of the political spectrum we call them what they are, fascists -- want what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls a "fiscal train wreck," in other words the crash and burn of hated federal social programs once and for all.

      "It`s no secret that right-wing ideologues want to abolish programs
      Americans take for granted," Krugman wrote in the New York Times, not exactly a haven for left-wing types. "But not long ago, to suggest that the Bush administration`s policies might actually be driven by those ideologues -- that the administration was deliberately setting the country up for a fiscal crisis in which popular social programs could be sharply cut -- was to be accused of spouting conspiracy theories... Yet by pushing through another huge tax cut in the face of record deficits, the administration clearly demonstrates either that it is completely feckless, or that it actually wants a fiscal crisis. (Or maybe both.)"

      Beyond trumpeting the call to feudalize America, the War Street Journal and its supply-side neoliberal neocons are among Bush`s most faithful warmongers, chickenhawks, and bloodletting cheerleaders.

      Bartley`s "opinion pieces" are fastidious in their call for war against the people of Iraq, repeating Bushite lies ad nauseam: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was itching to use them, Saddam is the top banana of international terrorism, Saddam and Osama are in cahoots, Saddam was behind the anthrax attacks in America, Saddam would unleash a fatal poxvirus attack on America in response to an invasion of Iraq. All of this, of course, turned out to be pure and unadulterated bullshit. Regardless, Bartley has served his neocon masters well, abusing his influential position as "editor emeritus" of a prestigious newspaper in order to spread Bush`s lies.

      Leaving these parroted lies behind, Bartley has recently moved on to disseminate new deceptions.

      On September 8, in the wake of a Dubya speech crammed like a stinking sardine can full of pathological lies, Bartley addressed the "rough patch" the US is encountering "four months after military victory in Iraq." Even though the immensity of Bush`s lies was more than obvious in September, Bartley continued to insist, "Iraq and September 11 are inseparable."

      Once again demonstrating that lies and deception are indigenous to the moral character of Straussian neocons, Bartley went on to state that no "serious observer can believe that we would have invaded Iraq if there had been no hijackings." In other words, Bartley believes the readers of the War Street Journal editorial pages are morons.

      As the Independent reported way back in September of 2002, the Bushites, consisting of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Dubya`s younger brother Jeb, and Scooter Libby drew up plans for an Iraq invasion in a document entitled "Rebuilding America`s Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century" well before Bush was appointed to the presidency. "Fuck Saddam," our Christian Zionist Caesar allegedly snarled in March 2002, a full year before his criminal invasion. "We`re taking him out."

      Considering Robert Bartley`s slavish willingness to revise history and herald the outrageous lies of the Bushite neocons, it should hardly come as a surprise that Bush would "honor" him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, aka the Dictator Medal of Mindfuck. Bartley has served his master well, so it only stands to reason.

      Said Jim Naureckas of FAIR after Bartley`s enshrinement, "[If decades of producing partisan propaganda is a service to freedom, then I guess [Bartley] deserves a medal."

      Bartley`s screeds in the name of Empire, however, go well beyond simple partisan propaganda - they provide the intellectual underpinnings (along with the whacked out exhortations of fellow neocon "thinkers" William Kristol, William Safire, Charles Krauthammer Elliot Cohen, Max Boot, Daniel Pipes, and others) required for the interminable war on Islam in the name of Greater Israel, the rabid Likudites in Tel Aviv and Washington, and the neoliberal agenda determined to privatize, i.e., steal, the natural resources and wealth of the Third World.

      For Bartley`s undeviating service I`m sure Bush is immensely thankful - or, at least, his neocon puppeteers are immensely thankful.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 18:14:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.077 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 18:20:44
      Beitrag Nr. 10.078 ()
      ZNet | Terror War

      Amistad Revisited At Guantanamo?

      by Jeremy Brecher; December 05, 2003

      In the 1841 Amistad case - vividly portrayed in Stephen Spielberg`s movie "Amistad" - the U.S. Supreme Court courageously held that human rights and the rule of law must apply to captives who had been seized in Africa and imprisoned in the United States. The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the eerily parallel case of those seized in Afghanistan and imprisoned at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It should reaffirm the Amistad precedent.

      The Guantanamo captives, who the Bush administration alleges were "unlawful combatants," are held prisoner without lawyers, without a day in court, without even hearing the charges against them. The administration claims the authority to deny the captives the right of habeas corpus - the right to appear before a judge, a right dating to the Magna Carta, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and necessary for protecting all other human rights. The administration claims, paradoxically, that its agents can do whatever they want because the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay is in a foreign country and therefore not under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

      The Amistad captives were seized in Africa, shipped to Cuba and sold as slaves. They revolted, seized control of the Amistad and sailed to New England. They were captured by the U.S. Navy and imprisoned in Connecticut.

      The U.S. attorney general demanded that the courts turn them over for delivery to Spanish authorities - even planning to send them on a U.S. government ship so Connecticut courts could not intercede with a writ of habeas corpus.

      Both these cases raise the same two fundamental questions of human rights and the rule of law. Does the executive branch of government ever have the authority to seize people, imprison them and spirit them away to a foreign land with no appeal to a court? And does the executive ever have authority to act without any possibility of review by the judiciary? In the Amistad case, the Supreme Court answered no to both questions.

      The executive`s position in the Amistad case met withering scorn from former President John Quincy Adams - inspiringly portrayed in Spielberg`s movie by Anthony Hopkins - who defended the Amistad captives before the Supreme Court.

      Adams charged that the government was depriving the captives of the most fundamental rights. "Have the officers of the U.S. Navy a right to seize men by force, to fire at them, to overpower them, to disarm them, to put them on board of a vessel and carry them by force and against their will to another state, without warrant or form of law? ... Is there a right of habeas corpus in the land? ... Is it for this court to sanction such monstrous usurpation and executive tyranny?"

      Adams pointed out that sending people overseas for trial was "one of the most odious of those acts of tyranny which occasioned the American Revolution." Indeed, the Declaration of Independence specifically condemns King George III for "transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences."

      Adams also condemned the executive`s attempt to usurp the authority of the courts. Perhaps, Adams conceded, it may be easy for the royal governor at Havana "to seize any man" and "send him beyond seas for any purpose." But "has the president of the United States any such powers? Can the American executive do such things?" The Spanish demand was no less than that "the executive of the United States, on his own authority, without evidence, without warrant of law, should seize, put on board a national armed ship and send beyond seas 40 men, to be tried for their lives."

      When Spain demanded that the president issue a proclamation overriding the jurisdiction of the courts, it was demanding "what the executive could not do, by the Constitution. It would be the assumption of a control over the judiciary by the president, which would overthrow the whole fabric of the Constitution; it would violate the principles of our government generally and in every particular." Yet that is in essence what the Bush administration is asking the Supreme Court to accept in the Guantanamo case.

      The Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts were bound to protect the rights of the Amistad captives. The rights of the case "must be decided upon the eternal principles of justice and international law." To rule otherwise would "take away the equal rights of all foreigners, who should contest their claims before any of our courts, to equal justice," or "deprive such foreigners of the protection given them" by "the general law of nations."

      In 1841, the Supreme Court took a bold stand against executive tyranny and for human rights and the rule of law. Let us hope the United States will remain a government under law, not a presidential dictatorship.

      Jeremy Brecher of West Cornwall won the American Bar Association`s 1997 Silver Gavel Award for the script of the video documentary "The Amistad Revolt."
      Copyright 2003, Hartford Courant
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 18:33:57
      Beitrag Nr. 10.079 ()
      White House Confirms Bush Bladder Problem
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



      Washington (IWR News Satire) - White House spokesman Scott McClellan confirmed today that President Bush does indeed have a bladder control problem. "It seems the problem mainly occurs whenever the President passes out after drinking, a half dozen or so, 40 ounce bottles of Schlitz malt liquor," said McClellan.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 18:39:44
      Beitrag Nr. 10.080 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 19:16:51
      Beitrag Nr. 10.081 ()
      Friday, December 05, 2003
      War News for December 4 and 5, 2003

      Wie immer je4de Meldeung ein Link:
      http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/



      Bring `em on: US soldier killed in roadside bomb ambush in Baghdad.

      Bring `em on: US Army convoy ambushed in Mishada; witnesses report causalites.

      Bring `em on: Two Iraqi policemen wounded in RPG attack on Ramadi police station.

      Report from Samarra.

      IGC cleric demands direct vote.

      Rummy visits Iraq.

      Lieutenant AWOL appoints Bush crime family consiglieri to administer Iraqi debt.

      Incompetent administrator and fashion maven L. Paul Bremer predicts another upsurge in attacks against Americans troops.

      General Clark reams Lieutenant AWOL on his lack of personal integrity. "President Bush will be unable to win allied support to send more troops into postwar Iraq because European leaders have lost faith in him, Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said Thursday. `I hate to say this, but a lot of it is personal. It is directed against Bush. They won`t join with George Bush. They don`t trust him,` Clark said during an interview with The Telegraph`s editorial board."

      Commentary

      Opinion: Soldier sounds off about Operation Jive Turkey. "Why is it that the President did not care enough to visit the troops on the previous two Thanksgiving holidays, when he had high approval ratings amongst both the troops and the public? Instead, he stayed at the ranch in Crawford. Sort of like he stayed in Texas and Alabama, where he was AWOL for a year from the Air National Guard, during the Vietnam War, while others such as Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John McCain, former Sen. Max Cleland, and yes, even Al Gore served in combat."

      Editorial: Bush`s media manipulation hides his Iraq failure from the American people. "How are we supposed to believe that this conflict is really about democracy for the Iraqi people, or eradicating terrorism, when White House spin doctors play such a prominent role in this particular theater?"

      Casualty Reports

      Local story: Georgia soldier killed in Iraq.

      Local story: Mississippi soldier killed in Iraq.

      Local story: New Mexico soldier wounded in Iraq.

      Local story: California soldier dies of wounds.

      Local story: North Carolina soldier wounded in Iraq.

      Local story: Alabama soldier wounded in Iraq.





      # posted by yankeedoodle : 6:05 AM
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 19:22:44
      Beitrag Nr. 10.082 ()
      Es gibt noch viele, die ein Stück von dem Kuchen abhaben wollen.

      Bush names Baker envoy to Iraq

      Associated Press


      WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Friday called on a longtime family troubleshooter, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, to oversee the job of getting Iraq out from under its crushing $125 billion debt.
      "Secretary Baker will report directly to me and will lead an effort to work with the world`s governments at the highest levels, with international organizations and with the Iraqis in seeking the restructuring and reduction of Iraq`s official debt," Bush said in a statement read by White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

      As the president`s personal envoy on the issue, Baker will tackle a major problem in the rebuilding of Iraq. Iraq`s debt carries annual servicing charges of $7 billion to $8 billion.

      "The regime of Saddam Hussein saddled the Iraqi people with the debt because they were more interested in building palaces and torture chambers and mass graves than helping the Iraqi people," McClellan said.

      Bush said he made the appointment in response to a request by the Iraqi Governing Council.

      "The future of the Iraqi people should not be mortgaged to the enormous burden of debt incurred to enrich Saddam Hussein`s regime," Bush said.

      With experience in diplomacy and world finance, Baker "will help to forge an international consensus for an equitable and effective resolution of this issue," Bush said.

      Baker will serve as a volunteer, working out of an office at the White House and traveling to other countries.

      "This debt endangers Iraq`s long-term prospects for political health and economic prosperity," Bush said. "The issue of Iraq`s debt must be resolved in a manner that is fair and does not unjustly burden a struggling nation at its moment of hope and promise."

      Baker, a Houston attorney, is a longtime Bush family friend who has held several high government posts.

      In the closely fought 2000 election, Baker headed up Bush`s strategy team during the recount battle in Florida, which eventually ended up in the Supreme Court and delivered the presidency to Bush.

      He oversaw the presidential campaigns of Bush`s father in 1980, 1988 and 1992.

      He served as President Reagan`s first chief of staff, and as treasury secretary in Reagan`s second term.

      He left his post of secretary of state to serve as campaign manager in the first President Bush`s unsuccessful 1992 re-election bid.

      Dan Senor, a spokesman for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, said in Baghdad that estimates of Iraq`s foreign debt range as high as $125 billion.

      Reducing Iraq`s foreign debt is a high priority both of the coalition and of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, Senor said.

      Of the total Iraqi foreign debt, some $40 billion is owed to the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and other countries who are among 19 nations belonging to the Paris Club, an umbrella organization that conducts debt negotiations.

      At least $80 billion more is owed to other Arab countries and nations outside the Paris Club.


      Find this article at:
      http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1203/05baker.html
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 20:39:01
      Beitrag Nr. 10.083 ()
      Iraq: the next Afghanistan

      06dec03

      As George W. Bush sinks slowly in the West, let’s look at what he’s achieved at other points of the compass. Afghanistan? The US-appointed president, previously an associate of the Bush family in the oil industry, needs a Praetorian guard of Americans to keep him safe in Kabul.

      Elsewhere in the country, the warlords are back in business, the opium poppies are blooming, heroin sales are booming and the country is returning to the same level of corruption and dysfunction that brought about the rise of the Taliban in the first place. Little wonder they’re regrouping in the south and south-east, preparing for another tilt at power. And don’t be too surprised if many in Afghanistan, embittered by America’s hit-and-run policy in regard to their long-suffering country, welcome them back. Meanwhile, bin Laden remains safe and well.
      Iraq? The war-damaged sewerage system still oozes muck into the drinking water, adding to the growing crisis in public health. The looted hospitals remain desperate for the most basic drugs and medical equipment. The oil pipeline, intended to provide cashflow to rebuild the country, has been set ablaze time and time again. While Washington has foisted on the Iraqis a wide-ranging program of privatisations (allowing 100 per cent ownership by foreigners who are free to repatriate 100 per cent of the profits), there’s no great rush to claim these spoils of war.

      Not with security deteriorating - with the UN, the Red Cross, Care Australia, local religious leaders, members of the governing Council as well as American and Italian troops being targeted.

      The escalating attacks come from anyone - Saddam loyalists, Islamic factions, al-Qa’ida blow-ins and other militant groups crossing the borders. Anyone and everyone with a grudge against the US is operating in Iraq. And Bush’s response? Increasingly desperate manoeuvrings to bring some of his demoralised troops back home to make things look better for his re-election campaign. The US never released casualty figures after Gulf War I.

      The death toll, this time round, is again being censored and talked down. (Incidentally, US networks are no longer permitted to film returning coffins.) However, respected NGOs in Europe and Britain insist that 50,000 Iraqi troops and 10,000 civilians have been killed, with at least a further 40,000 injured.

      Lucky Australia - thus far, not one fatality. But we’ve been party to a slaughter of the innocents that should make every one of us feel deeply ashamed. Oh, and like bin Laden, Saddam Hussein is still alive and kicking.

      As for Iraq’s alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, we have witnessed the biggest failure in intelligence in modern history; or been misled with the biggest lies foisted on Western democracy. Or both. It’s now clear that only one man was honest about WMDs in the run-up to the war.

      Not Bush. Not Blair. Not Howard. It was, of course, Saddam Hussein, who denied having them. You’ll recall that he was backed up by many among the weapons inspectorate, by those familiar with the devastation in Gulf War I and by observers of the powerful effects of ongoing sanctions. We now learn that there were desperate back-door attempts by Baghdad to prevent the conflict. To cut deals on almost anything and everything Washington wanted. But what Washington wanted most of all was a war. The war in Iraq was guaranteed to lead to political miracles throughout the Middle East. Having been welcomed by cheering crowds, the Coalition of the Willing would inspire peace, freedom and democracy everywhere from Syria to Iran. At least the mess in Iraq has discredited the neo-Cons’ neo-imperial fantasies.

      Meanwhile, countless new terrorists have been recruited. Saudi Arabia, the principal provider of volunteers and finance for September 11, is now a target of terrorism itself - as is Turkey. And the promised outbreak of peace between Israel and the Palestinians has failed to materialise. The “road map” is in ruins, and Sharon and Arafat, the Tweedles Dum and Dee of that endless crisis, are consolidated in power.

      Iran? It’d be a stretch to say it’s behaving itself because of the war in Iraq. In fact, the Iranian people have been involved in a process of reform that owes nothing to the US and everything to the courage of its own people.

      The Bush administration - condemned by almost the entire membership of the UN and supported only by Blair and, God help us, Howard - has been revealed as dangerously delusional. The world is in no way a safer place and Australia no way a safer nation.

      Howard’s job is to protect Australians from terrorism. Instead, he’s got us far, far higher on the terrorist hit list. Instead of protecting Australians in Bali, instead of arresting Willie Brigitte as he plotted to blow up a nuclear facility in a Sydney suburb, Howard had us charging off to the other side of the world for a war that was none of our business. At the same time, he was wasting immense military resources rounding up a few desperate refugees fleeing countries like, yes, Iraq and Afghanistan. Madness. All Howard’s posturing at war memorials cannot deflect from the simple fact that he’s put Australia, quite unnecessarily, at greater risk.

      Though shouted down at the time by the Conservative chorus, this column predicted much of what would happen in Iraq - as did the writings of the like-minded. As did the millions who marched against the war. Yet Howard still talks as though the Coalition of the Willing has been entirely successful. If this is success, try to imagine failure.



      privacy © The Australian
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 20:43:31
      Beitrag Nr. 10.084 ()
      DECEMBER 5 - 11, 2003
      http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/02/news-corn.php

      Is the President a Pathological Liar?
      Bush’s unhealthy relationship with reality
      by David Corn

      It was a set-up question. Conservative radio talk-show host Michael Medved was trying to bait me, to push me into saying something so out of whack about the commander in chief that I would destroy my own credibility before the audience of his nationally syndicated show. It was a ruse I’ve become quite familiar with in recent weeks, since I published a book demurely titled The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. In scores of media interviews, right-wing hosts have pressed me to pronounce Bush the all-time biggest SOB-of-a-liar in the White House and essentially accuse him of being a psycho. I have resisted the invitations, choosing to stick to my just-the-facts case that Bush has misled the public on a host of issues — the war in Iraq, his tax cuts, global warming, Social Security, his own past and more. The goal of these interlocutors is to dismiss any harsh critique of Bush as nothing more than angry-left name-calling. I obviously believe Bush has lied often and consistently about grave matters, but I have shied away from labeling Bush “pathological” and the like.

      Now I wonder about that.

      What forced this reconsideration was a speech Bush delivered in late November to several thousand troops at Butts Army Air Field in Fort Carson, Colorado. On this occasion, Bush served up the usual rah-rah about the war on terrorism. But as he was hailing the U.S. military, he remarked, “Working with a fine coalition, our military went to Afghanistan, destroyed the training camps of al Qaeda and put the Taliban out of business forever.”

      Out of business forever?

      That was a false statement. Days before Bush’s speech, a U.S. helicopter crashed near Kabul, and five American soldiers were killed. These troops were hunting Taliban remnants. Two days before the speech, a rocket was fired at the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul; Taliban insurgents were the prime suspects. On November 16, a U.N. aid worker was assassinated, apparently by the Taliban. In Kandahar, the Taliban was threatening to harm Afghans who participated in local elections.

      None of this has been secret, even if events in Afghanistan receive less media coverage than the Laci Peterson case. In recent weeks, a stream of news reports has noted that the Taliban is on the rise and mounting an increasing number of attacks. These assaults have impeded much-needed reconstruction projects. In mid-November, a U.N. mission reported that the Taliban attacks were endangering democracy in Afghanistan.

      What then could account for Bush’s truth-defying assertion about the Taliban? After all, it was a statement ridiculously easy to disprove. (The Bush bashers of Moveon.org immediately sent out a mass e-mail citing this remark as further evidence that Bush is a misleader.) Was Bush really trying to hornswoggle the troops and the American people? In a way. I assume that had he bothered to think about this line, he probably would have realized that it was inaccurate and that there was no reason to claim the Taliban was stone-cold dead when he could have truthfully declared that the U.S. military (under his command) and its Afghan allies had routed the Taliban. It was not as if Bush said to himself, Aha! I know what I’ll do. I will boast that I eliminated the Taliban — even though anyone who follows this stuff knows a Taliban resurgence is under way — and fool people into believing I am winning the war on terrorism.

      Bush was more likely engaged in the deceit of triumphalism — ignoring facts and saying whatever sounds good to juice up the public. It was hype, extreme rhetoric, utterly divorced from events on the ground. This statement was a report from Planet Bush, not the world as it exists — a demonstration of Bush’s penchant to embrace (and peddle) self-serving fantasy over the obvious truth.

      The dishonesty underlying the Taliban line was transparent. In the same speech, Bush also practiced (yet again) a more nuanced form of dissembling. He told the crowd that the war on terrorism began with 9/11, and that “we will not rest until we bring these committed killers to justice. These terrorists will not be stopped by negotiations, or by appeals to reason, or by the least hint of conscience . . . We must, and we will continue to, take the fight to the enemy.” So far so good: The terrorists who mounted the 9/11 attacks are bad and must be defeated. Then Bush distorted the picture: “Terrorists need places to hide, to plot and to train, so we’re holding their allies, the allies of terror, to account.” And he cited Afghanistan and Iraq.

      The implication was that somehow Iraq had afforded direct assistance to the people who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. But there has been no proof that the mass-murdering perps of 9/11 used Iraq to hide, plot or train. Even though Bush conceded in September that there was “no evidence” tying Hussein to 9/11, he still endeavors to draw a straight line from the 9/11 evildoers to Iraq.



      He displayed a similar disingenuousness during his surprise, 150-minute-long Thanksgiving Day visit to the American troops at the Bob Hope mess hall at the Baghdad airport. “You are,” he told the GIs, “defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don’t have to face them in our own country.” That comment — which Bush had said previously — sure seemed designed to create the impression that the war in Iraq is about beating back al Qaeda, the only terrorists Americans have had to face in their “own country.” In the weeks after Baghdad fell, reports out of Iraq raised the possibility that anti-American jihadists linked to or motivated by al Qaeda were pouring into Iraq to do battle with the United States. But a week before Bush told the troops they were battling “terrorists” in Iraq who might otherwise be gunning for their loved ones on the streets of America, two of Bush’s top commanders in Iraq — Major General Charles Swannack Jr. and Major General David Petraeus — said that they had seen little sign that a significant number of al Qaeda loyalists or wannabes had flocked to Iraq. The enemy they are facing, the pair asserted, were mainly Baathist remnants. And there is no reason to believe these murderous thugs would be planning raids on domestic U.S. targets if the U.S. military were not chasing after them in Iraq.

      So Bush tells us the ongoing war in Iraq is a strike against the forces that hit America on 9/11 and would do so again (were it not for the invasion of Iraq), and he proclaims the Taliban extinct. None of this is supported by the readily available information provided by the media or Bush’s own military. Making such melodramatic and misleading claims may or may not be pathological, but it certainly isn’t a sign that Bush has a healthy relationship with reality.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 20:46:55
      Beitrag Nr. 10.085 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Perle Article Didn`t Disclose Boeing Tie
      Pentagon Adviser Lauded Plan to Lease Air Tankers

      By David S. Hilzenrath
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Friday, December 5, 2003; Page E01


      Pentagon adviser Richard N. Perle coauthored an opinion piece this summer praising a Pentagon plan to lease tanker aircraft -- which had the potential to steer billions of dollars to Boeing Co. -- 16 months after Boeing committed to invest $20 million with a venture capital firm where Perle was a principal.

      "It takes a special government green-eyeshade mentality to miss the urgency of the tanker requirement," Perle and a coauthor wrote in the Aug. 14 article in the Wall Street Journal. The piece did not mention Boeing by name or Perle`s firm -- Trireme Partners -- and its business relationship with the giant defense contractor.

      Perle`s business interests and his position in the defense policy world have repeatedly placed him at the center of controversy this year. Perle, an outspoken advocate of the war in Iraq, was a Pentagon official in the Reagan administration and has been a corporate consultant.

      The Wall Street Journal editor who handled the article was not available for comment, "but normally we would rely on the contributor to tell us if they have any financial conflicts of interest because we do like to disclose these things," said Brigitte Trafford, a spokesman for Dow Jones & Co., which publishes the newspaper.

      Boeing yesterday said the company briefed Perle on the tanker issue on July 14. Boeing said it "had no hand in writing the document nor did we assist in placing it."

      In March, Perle resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board after press accounts raised questions about his actions on behalf of Global Crossing and Loral. He remains a member of the policy board, a group of former government officials and others that advises the Pentagon.

      Perle also serves on the board of directors of Hollinger International Inc., the media company whose chief executive, Conrad Black, resigned last month after disclosures that he and other executives collected millions of dollars payments the company`s audit committee determined were unauthorized.

      Hollinger disclosed last month that it has invested $2.5 million in Trireme Associates. A special committee of Hollinger`s board is examining that investment and others involving company insiders, a source close to Hollinger said yesterday.

      Perle has not responded to requests this week for an interview on his business activities. Messages left at his office late yesterday were not returned. His coauthor, Tom Donnelly, was traveling and could not be reached for comment.

      The Financial Times last night on its Web site quoted Perle as saying "I never discussed the tanker issue or my views on the tanker issue with anyone at Boeing that had anything to do with Trireme."

      The Pentagon put the $17 billion Boeing tanker deal on hold this week while its inspector general investigates whether the procurement process was handled properly. The company last week fired two executives, including a former Air Force procurement official, for allegedly violating company policies. Amid the controversy, Boeing chief executive Philip M. Condit resigned Monday.

      Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld named Perle to the policy board in 2001. Later that year, Trireme Partners, a venture fund, was set up in Delaware.

      Trireme Partners first sought an investment from Boeing in February 2002, and the company decided to invest $20 million two months later, Boeing said in a written statement this week. To date, it has advanced $2 million to the fund, the statement said.

      Gerald Hillman, another principal, represented Trireme, and Perle was not involved in the discussions to obtain the Boeing investment, Boeing said. Perle holds an equity stake in Trireme Associates LLC, which is the general partner of Trireme Partners and receives a share of its profits, according to documents Hollinger filed last month with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

      "There`s no connection between these two matters," Hillman said last night of Boeing`s investment with Trireme and Perle`s op-ed piece.

      A memorandum Trireme gave Boeing describing the fund included brief biographies of the principals, including Perle and Hillman, Boeing said. It noted that Perle is "Chairman of the Defense Policy Board and a consultant to the Department of Defense," Boeing said.

      Boeing "also received a letter early in the process with Trireme that also mentioned that Richard Perle is (was) chairman of the DPB," Boeing said.

      Trireme`s fund is one of 29 venture capital funds to which Boeing has committed a total of about $250 million, the aerospace company said.

      The Defense Department`s inspector general investigated several of Perle`s business activities for alleged conflict of interest or misuse of public office and reported last month that the inquiry did not find violations of applicable standards. The investigation found "insufficient basis to conclude that Mr. Perle created the appearance of impropriety from the perspective of a reasonable person," the report said.

      For example, the inspector general confirmed that Perle contacted a State Department official on behalf of Loral, but found that Perle "did so in his private capacity and did not mention or invoke" his position on the advisory board and therefore did not misuse his position.

      Perle inquired about Loral`s requests for licenses to deliver satellites to a Chinese buyer, the report said.

      Certain restrictions did not apply to Perle because as chairman of the policy board he served the government only about eight days a year instead of the threshold of 60 days, the report said.

      Researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 21:10:57
      Beitrag Nr. 10.086 ()
      December 1, 2003 issue
      Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
      http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

      In Rumsfeld’s Shop


      A senior Air Force officer watches as the neocons consolidate their Pentagon coup.


      By Karen Kwiatkowski

      Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski recently retired from the U.S. Air Force. Her final posting was as an analyst at the Pentagon. Below is the first of three installments describing her experience there. They provide a unique view of the Department of Defense during a period of intense ideological upheaval, as the United States prepared to launch—for the first time in its history—a “preventive” war.

      In early May 2002, I was looking forward to retirement from the United States Air Force in about a year. I had a cushy job in the Pentagon’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, International Security Affairs, Sub-Saharan Africa.

      In the previous two years, I had published two books on African security issues and had passed my comprehensive doctoral exams at Catholic University. I was very pleased with the administration’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sub-Saharan Africa, former Marine and Senator Helms staffer Michael Westphal, and was ready to start thinking about my dissertation and my life after the military.

      When Mike called me in to his office, I thought I was getting a new project or perhaps that one of my many suggestions of fun things to do with Africa policy had been accepted. But the look on his face clued me in that this was going to be one of those meetings where somebody wasn’t leaving happy. After a quick rank check, I had a good idea which one it would be.

      There was a position in Near East South Asia (NESA) that they needed to fill right away. I wasn’t interested. They phrased the question another way: “We have been tasked to send a body over to Bill Luti. Can we send you?” I resisted—until I slowly guessed that in true bureaucratic fashion and can-do military tradition my name had already been sent over. This little soirée in Mike’s office was my farewell.

      I went back to my office and e-mailed a buddy in the Joint Staff. Bob wrote back, “Write down everything you see.” I didn’t do it, but these most wise words from a trusted friend proved the first of three omens I would soon receive.

      I showed up down the hall a few days later. It looked just like the office from which I came, newer blue cubicles, narrow hallways piled high with copy paper, newspapers, unused equipment, and precariously leaning map rolls. The same old concrete-building smell pervaded, maybe a little mustier. I was taking over the desk of a CIA loaner officer. Joe had been called back early to the agency and was hoping to go to Yemen. Before he left, he briefed me on his biggest project: ongoing negotiations with the Qatari sheiks over who was paying for improvements to Al Udeid Air Base. I was familiar with Al Udeid from my time on the Air Staff a few years before. Back then we seemed to like the Saudis, and our Saudi bases were a few hours closer to the action than Al Udeid, so the U.S. played a woo-me game. Now that we needed and wanted Al Udeid to be finished quickly and done up right, it was time for the emirs to play hard to get. Joe gave me the rundown on counterterrorism ops in Yemen and an upcoming agreement with the Bahraini monarch to extend our military-security agreement, locking in a relationship just in case those Bahraini experiments with democracy actually took off.

      I had an obligatory meeting with the deputy director, Paul Hulley, Navy Captain. This meeting followed a phone call in which I hadn’t been as compliant as I should have been with a Navy Captain, and since Paul had handled my bad attitude with candor and grace, I was determined to like him—and I did. I gave him my story: I was a year from retirement and, more importantly, I was in a car pool. I’d be working a 7:15 to 17:30 schedule. He was neither charmed nor impressed. He advised that I’d need to be working a lot longer than that. Then we stepped in to meet Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Bill Luti. I knew Luti had a Ph.D. in international relations from the Fletcher School at Tufts and was a recently retired Navy Captain himself. At this point, I didn’t know what a neocon was or that they had already swarmed over the Pentagon, populating various hives of policy and planning like African hybrids, with the same kind of sting reflex. Luti just seemed happy to have me there as a warm body.

      My second omen was the super-size bottles of Tums and Tylenol Joe left in his desk. The third occurred as I was chatting with my new office mate, a career civil servant working the Egypt desk. As the conversation moved into Middle East news and politics, she mentioned that if I wanted to be successful here, I shouldn’t say anything positive about the Palestinians. In 19 years of military service, I had never heard such a politically laden warning on such an obscure topic to such an inconsequential player. I had the sense of a single click, the sound tectonic plates might make as they shift deep under the earth and lock into a new resting position—or when the trigger is pulled in a game of Russian roulette.

      I had never worked for neocons before, and the philosophical journey to understand what they stood for was not a trip I wanted to take. But my conversations with coworkers and some of the people I was meeting in the office opened my eyes to something strange and fascinating. Those who had watched the transition from Clintonista to Bushite knew that something calculated had happened to NESA. Key personnel, long-time civilian professionals holding the important billets, had been replaced early in the transition. The Office Director, second in command and normally a professional civilian regional expert, was vacant. Joe McMillan had been moved to the NESA Center over at National Defense University. This was strange because in a transition the whole reason for the Office Director being a permanent civilian (occasionally military) professional is to help bring the new appointee up to speed, ensure office continuity, and act as a resource relating to regional histories and policies. To remove that continuity factor seemed contraindicated, but at the time, I didn’t realize that the expertise on Middle East policy was being brought in from a variety of outside think tanks.

      Another civilian replacement about which I was told was that of the long-time Israel/Syria/Lebanon desk, Larry Hanauer. Word was that he was even-handed with Israel, there had been complaints from one of his countries, and as a gesture of good will, David Schenker, fresh from the Washington Institute, was serving as the new Israel/Syria/Lebanon desk.

      I came to share with many NESA colleagues a kind of unease, a sense that something was awry. What seemed out of place was the strong and open pro-Israel and anti-Arab orientation in an ostensibly apolitical policy-generation staff within the Pentagon. There was a sense that politics like these might play better at the State Department or the National Security Council, not the Pentagon, where we considered ourselves objective and hard boiled.

      The anti-Arab orientation I perceived was only partially confirmed by things I saw. Towards the end of the summer, we welcomed to the office as a temporary special assistant to Bill Luti an Egyptian-American naval officer, Lt. (later Lt. Cmdr.) Youssef Aboul-Enein. His job wasn’t entirely clear to me, but he would research bits of data in which Bill Luti was interested and peruse Arabic-language media for quotations or events that could be used to demonize Saddam Hussein or link him to nastiness beyond his own borders and with unsavory characters.

      While I was still hoping to be sent back to the Africa desk, I was also angling to take the NESA North Africa desk that would be vacated in July. During this time, May through mid-July, the news in the daily briefing was focused on war planning for the Iraq invasion. Slides from a CENTCOM brief appeared on the front page of the New York Times on July 5. A few weeks later, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered an investigation into who leaked this information. The Air Force Office of Special Investigation was tasked to work with the FBI, and everyone in NESA was supposed to be interviewed.

      My interview, by two fresh-faced OSI investigators, occurred sometime in July. One handed me a copy of an article by William Arkin discussing Iraq-war planning published in May 2002 in the Los Angeles Times and asked if I knew Arkin. I didn’t recall the name, but when I checked I learned that he had spent time at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Apparently, Arkin had facilitated a leak six weeks before, but it hadn’t caused a fuss. I pointed out that I did know a person with major SAIS links who probably knew Arkin. They leaned forward eagerly. “Have you ever heard of Paul Wolfowitz?” They looked puzzled, so I called up the bio of the deputy secretary and showed them how he ran SAIS during most of the Clinton years. I suggested the investigation look at the answers to the cui bono question. I also told them no one in the military or at CENTCOM would leak war plans because as Rumsfeld accurately said, it gets people killed. But the politicos who were anxious to get the American people over the mental hump that the Bush administration was going to send troops to Iraq were not military and had both motive and opportunity to leak.

      During the summer, I assumed the duties of the North Africa desk. Part of my job was to schedule and complete two overdue bilateral meetings with longtime U.S. security partners Morocco and Tunisia. Bilateral meetings historically included a tailored regional-security briefing addressing Weapons of Mass Destruction threats and status. In planning my upcoming bilateral agendas and attendee lists, I discovered that Bill Luti had certain issues regarding the regional-security briefing, in particular with the aspects relating to WMD and terrorism.

      There had been an incident shortly before I arrived in which the Defense Intelligence Officer had been prohibited from giving his briefing to a particular country only hours before he was scheduled. During the summer, the brief was simply not scheduled for another important bilateral meeting. Instead, a briefing was prepared by another policy office that worked on non-proliferation issues. This briefing was not a product of the Defense Intelligence Agency or CIA but instead came from the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

      At the end of the summer of 2002, new space had been found upstairs on the fifth floor for an “expanded Iraq desk.” It would be called the Office of Special Plans. We were instructed at a staff meeting that this office was not to be discussed or explained, and if people in the Joint Staff, among others, asked, we were to offer no comment. We were also told that one of the products of this office would be talking points that all desk officers would use verbatim in the preparation of their background documents.

      About that same time, my education on the history and generation of the neoconservative movement had completed its first stage. I now understood that neoconservatism was both unhistorical and based on the organizing construct of “permanent revolution.” I had studied the role played by hawkish former Sen. Scoop Jackson (D-Wash.) and the neoconservative drift of formerly traditional magazines like National Review and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. I had observed that many of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon not only had limited military experience, if any at all, but they also advocated theories of war that struck me as rejections of classical liberalism, natural law, and constitutional strictures. More than that, the pressure of the intelligence community to conform, the rejection of it when it failed to produce intelligence suitable for supporting the “Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States” agenda, and the amazing things I was hearing in both Bush and Cheney speeches told me that not only do neoconservatives hold a theory based on ideas not embraced by the American mainstream, but they also have a collective contempt for fact.

      By August, I was morally and intellectually frustrated by my powerlessness against what increasingly appeared to be a philosophical hijacking of the Pentagon. Indeed, I had sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but perhaps we were never really expected to take it all that seriously …



      To be continued
      ______________________________________________

      In a coming installment, Lieutenant Colonel Kwiatkowsi relates what happens when a group of Israeli generals treads the well-worn (for them) path to Douglas Feith’s office.


      December 1, 2003 issue
      Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 21:18:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10.087 ()
      Nochmals Samarra und die US-Informationstaktik.

      ITV reporter attacks military `spin`
      Claire Cozens
      Friday December 5, 2003
      The Guardian

      ITV`s Middle East correspondent, Julian Manyon, has challenged the US military`s claims to have shot dead 54 Iraqi guerrillas in a new row over the way the conflict is being spun.

      US army spokesmen initially claimed 200 guerrillas had been killed when they tried to ambush two armoured convoys on Sunday, in a strike that triggered the biggest battle since George Bush declared an end to the war in Iraq seven months ago.

      The death toll for the battle, which took place in Samarra, part of Saddam Hussein`s Sunni heartland, was later revised to 54.

      But Manyon claimed that when he visited Samarra, local officials put the death toll at just eight.

      "The US military spokesman, who caused an excited ITV news desk to wake me at 1am, claimed that they had defeated co-ordinated attacks by about 200 `terrorists`, some of them wearing the uniform of the feared Saddam Fedayeen," he wrote in today`s Spectator magazine.

      "We arrived half expecting to see the bodies of dead insurgents littering the streets. Instead, at the town cemetery, we found that one of the first bodies to be buried under the speedy Muslim rite was that of a female employee of the town`s drugs factory, Ameera Sahil, who had been shot dead while waiting for a bus near the factory gate."

      According to Manyon`s account, just six fresh graves had been dug at the local cemetery and hospital officials put the final death toll at eight, with around 30 wounded.

      "The truth of this feat of American arms seems to be something like this: relatively small numbers of Saddam loyalists and local men fired on the American convoys and were met with a blizzard of machine-gun and automatic grenade fire," he said.

      Iraqi officials in Samarra immediately challenged the US`s version of events, accusing American soldiers of spraying fire at random people on the city`s streets and killing civilians - an account that appears to tally with Manyon`s description.

      But at a briefing in Baghdad today the US military was sticking by its story. "I trust the reports of my soldiers," said Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt.

      "There`s no reason to doubt what these soldiers saw. There`s no reason to doubt what the soldiers reported."

      The US military has been criticised repeatedly over its briefings to journalists with the head of Sky News, Nick Pollard, describing them as "poor" and dominated by spin.

      The lines between truth and spin were blurred on a regular basis, and the demands of 24-hour news meant items were often broadcast before journalists had the opportunity to check their accuracy.

      Early reports of Scud missiles being fired by Iraqi forces proved to be false as did countless reports - inspired by military briefings - about towns in the south of the country such as Basra being "taken".

      The so-called "fog of war" went to the very top, with Tony Blair famously claiming two British soldiers killed in southern Iraq, Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth and Sapper Luke Allsop, had been executed - a statement that was widely reported.

      But Downing Street later appeared to backtrack from this position after Allsop`s furious sister told the Mirror that his commanding officer had categorically told the family that both men had died instantly when their vehicle was ambushed.

      Similary, the death of Ali Hassan al-Majid - known as `Chemical Ali` for his role in using chemical weapons against Kurds in northern Iraq in 1988 - was widely reported following a British attack on his home in Basra.

      British officials first said he was believed to have died, later confirming a body had been identified. But they were forced to change tack after he was captured by US forces in August.

      And the explosion at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, home to many journalists covering the war, was the subject of much claim and counter-claim, with the US military admitting it had fired shots at the building, but blaming a suspected Iraqi sniper attack for the raid.

      BBC correspondent Andrew Gilligan cast doubt on whether the missile was fired by a US tank, speculating that Iraqi soldiers may have launched the lethal attack.

      · To contact the MediaGuardian newsdesk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 7239 9857

      · If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".


      MediaGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 21:25:17
      Beitrag Nr. 10.088 ()
      joerver,
      # 76 : bush names baker envoy to iraq

      als ich den namen dieses saftsackes, james baker, gelesen habe, klingelten bei mir die alarmglocken.

      ein "söldner" aus der carlyle - group lässt grüssen. der "erweiterte bush - clan" wieder in voller action -wie in alten tagen unter bush sen.

      baker wird dafür sorgen, dass die "privaten us -söldner
      a la "mipri" richtig stationiert u. plaziert werden, damit sie ausserhalb der offiziellen us - armee "frei" operieren können -aber vor allen dingen, dass der geldfluss u. die ölkontrolle weiterhin gesichert ist, wenn die offizielle us - armee sich nach u. nach aus dem staub macht: man will ja schliesslich verdienen u. nichts anderes!

      und nun ein kurzer artikel, den ich mal in meinem thread verfasst habe -dabei ist mir eben dieser baker u. das sehr brisante thema:
      us - söldnerfirmen über den weg gelaufen. (btw: mipri ist eine der bestverdienenden söldnerfirmen seit kosovo = wachstumsraten/ das "geschäft blüht").


      die überschrift heisst: lizenz zum töten

      ----
      4 von rightnow 23.03.03 19:07:16 Beitrag Nr.: 8.964.817 8964817
      Dieses Posting: versenden | melden | drucken | Antwort schreiben


      lizenz zum töten !


      (zitiert aus der welt am sonntag, 23.03.`03, nr. 12, seite 31)


      "... söldnerfirmen führen überall auf der welt krieg.sie verdienen prächtig ! der markt boomt.
      die privat - soldaten sind auch im irak im einsatz..."


      "der markt für private military companies (pmc`s), private militärdienstleister, wächst um ca. 8 % pro jahr.
      auf 100 milliarden us-dollar wird der gesamtumsatz weltweit geschätzt...
      sie gehen dorthin, wohin die regierung offiziell keine soldaten schicken kann.

      gross - britanniens aussenminister, jack the ripper,
      äh, straw,findet pcm`s seien in einer welt "voller schwachen staaten durchaus legitim !"...

      so trainierte die us - firma military professional resources incorporated (=mpri), mit rd. 100 mia.dollar jahresumsatz, das wohl wichtigste unternehmen im jugoslawischen bürgerkrieg, zuerst die kroatische u. später die bosnische armee, im auftrag des pentagon !, das dadurch das un-waffenembargo umgehen konnte...

      darüber hinaus ist die firma in:
      nigeria
      äquitorialguinea
      u. in 31 us-staaten als ausbilder tätig...




      dyncorp. aus virginia in:

      kolumbien

      peru

      kellog brown& root (=kbr)

      bauten über tochterunternehmen :
      internierungslager in guantanamo in kuba

      dieses tochterunternehmenist wiederum ein tochterunternehmen des




      texanischen öl-riesen halliburton!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...



      (cheney lässt grüssen ! kotz !)


      ... pikant:

      vinell (us-firma, seit den 30-er jahren !)

      vinell, per us-auftrag auch mit einigen tausend mann am golf und in bosnien vertreten, gehört über verschachtelte beteiligungen zur :

      !!!!!!!!!!!!!carlyle group !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      hinter dieser gesellschaft verbergen sich unter anderem polit-prominente wie der ehemalige us-aussenminister james a. baker,
      der britische ex-premier john major und ein gewisser

      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!georg bush !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! vater von gwb u. ehemaliger president der usa.

      und auch im irakkrieg sind die privaten (mpri) dabei.

      ein mpri - sprecher:
      für alles weitere wenden sie sich bitte an das pentagon !


      - ende des zeitungsartikels, von u. machold u. n. späth

      ----

      john major, james baker, georg bush, halliburton, cheney, carlyle = die krimininellen banden funktionieren heute noch.
      und der obermafiosi im verborgenen ,c. carlucci, zieht im hintergrund die fäden u. lässt mit desinformationen den us - cia ins leere laufen, so dass sie jeweils als die deppen dastehen.


      diese us - blutsauger, haben jetzt nach kosovo, bosnien, einen "neuen weideplatz" gefunden, auf dem sich weiter aasen lässt.
      --

      :cool:
      cu
      rightnow
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 21:34:15
      Beitrag Nr. 10.089 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 21:44:29
      Beitrag Nr. 10.090 ()
      rightnow

      Das sind alles Wiedergänger und Vampire, teilweise schon aus der Reagan-Zeit.
      Es ist zu viel Material, was da jeden Tag auf den Tisch kommt.
      Und das Schöne daran ist alle die Bestechungen(heute gerade ein Senator soll mit 100 000$ bestochen worden sein, um für Medicare zu stimmen, Perle ist in den Boeing Deal mit der Luftwaffe verwickelt) die korrupten Verschwendungen stehen in fast allen Zeitungen, und kein Schwein kümmert sich darum.
      Interessant ist für das Volk Jackson, der Sniper u.ä.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 21:48:00
      Beitrag Nr. 10.091 ()
      Conservatives want Reagan on dimes



      The New Ronald Reagan Penny
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 21:51:15
      Beitrag Nr. 10.092 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Pisa grüßt aus USA
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 22:09:46
      Beitrag Nr. 10.093 ()
      Inside the Iraqi resistance -- 2
      By P. MITCHELL PROTHERO
      United Press International
      Published 12/4/2003 12:49 PM
      View printer-friendly version


      BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 4 (UPI) -- (Editor`s Note: This is the second and final part of a series on meetings United Press International`s Baghdad correspondent, P. Mitchell Prothero, had with a member of an anti-U.S. Iraqi guerrilla group. Part one was published Wednesday.)


      The anti-U.S. Iraqi guerrillas have a loosely organized command structure that prevents any one man from knowing too many specifics about the rest of the operations, says Abu Mujahid, a cell leader for a Baghdad neighborhood. But while some coordination and support exists among the different cells, most are left to operate independently and are required to obtain many of their own weapons.

      "We have to find ways to get our own money to buy weapons," he says. "The Baath Party members at the top were rich, but I don`t think many of them help us fight. They don`t send us money or weapons."

      "I have friends and colleagues who fight with the Army of Mohammed (a cell based in the Western Iraqi city of Fallujah) and they have more money for anti-aircraft weapons and explosives. Sometimes they help us, but mostly we are left to our own," he says.

      But one source of support has been foreigners from other Arab countries.

      In earlier interviews, Abu Mujahid acknowledged that both Syrian intelligence and al-Qaida members were operating in Iraq against the U.S.-led coalition forces but denied he received direct assistance from them. But in later interviews, he said he received support from some people he suspects have ties with terrorist organizations.

      "In my neighborhood, we have many students from Yemen, Syria and Jordan," he says. "Several of them give us money to buy weapons and conduct operations."

      When asked if he thought these students were members or supporters of al-Qaida, he smiles and shrugs.

      "How does a student living in Iraq get money to give to me to buy RPG-7s (an anti-tank rocket common in the region)?" he asks. "They have to get their money somewhere. The Syrian ones I think they get money from their government, but we get some money from Yemenis and Saudis. I think they must belong to al-Qaida to have such money. But I don`t ask such things. I don`t like Osama bin Laden and don`t want to fight jihad against America. The Iraqi people just want the Americans to leave our country."

      He has, however, used the money to send men to Saudi Arabia to buy equipment.

      "In Iraq, we all have the AK-47 assault rifle," he says. "But we need a high-powered rifle -- like a sniper gun with a scope. We don`t have hunting stores here in Iraq. Saddam never allowed the Iraqis to have hunting rifles like these because, I think, he feared being shot. So we have sent men to Saudi -- where they have hunting rifles -- to buy such weapons with scopes. These guns, we hope can break the American (body armor)."

      Abu Mujahid also says Iraqi police opposes the suicide attacks on international groups and the Iraqi police should not support the Americans, but says they are needed to help protect the Iraqi people from criminals.

      "I know that it is haraam (forbidden under Islam) to support the invader," he says after a moments pause. "And anyone who does support him should be killed under Islamic law. But the police protect Iraqis from Ali Baba (Baghdad slang for criminals), so they should be left alone."

      In another interview, he details how he became the leader of his neighborhood cell.

      "When we decided to fight the occupation, my colleagues and I elected our first leader," he explains. "And on one of our first operations we allowed al-Jazeera (the Qatari-based news network) reporters to come with us. The Americans were waiting for our attack. Six of our men and our leader were arrested because of this reporter, we think he was an informer for the Americans.

      "Because I was an organizer for the operation and did not meet with the reporter, the Americans did not arrest me. So the remaining men selected me to lead the group. I know our men, of which there are about 10. And I know one leader of another cell nearby. We both report to a leader who commands five of our groups. He has a commander, who I know about but do not know his name, who commands five of those groups -- about 250 men, or 25 cells. And that commander reports to a man who commands about 10 of these groups. I think my organization has about 2,500 men. But I know there is someone above him. But I only know the names of my men and two men: the one above me and (another cell commander based nearby)."

      "So if the Americans arrest me they can only get me. If they torture me, I can only tell them two names of commanders. Each of those commanders only knows a few names and none of my men or the other men in the cells."

      When asked if this organization was put into place before the invasion, Abu Mujahid agrees, though he does not know for sure.

      "We are told that Saddam might be at the top of the organization," he says. "I don`t know if I believe that but my colleague has seen Saddam," he said. "He comes to tell my colleagues to continue to fight. But we look at him as a strong leader. But we don`t want him back."

      But when asked if he thinks Saddam leads the resistance, he laughs.

      "I think Saddam is too busy hiding," he says. "I think that the leaders above me are former generals who want to replace Saddam when the Americans leave."

      In the last interview with UPI, conducted at the height of the American campaign against the resistance, codenamed "Iron Hammer," Abu Mujahid says his men had taken serious losses at the hands of the U.S. troops in recent days, but they had also infiltrated the U.S. military translator core and hoped to free some of their arrested colleagues.

      "It has been very bad," he says sighing one evening even as American airstrikes could be heard pounding targets in southwest Baghdad, the night sky illuminated by bombs and flares of the ongoing operation.

      "We have lost more men to these strikes and in arrests," he says. "One of our men was waiting to ambush a U.S. Humvee, when he was arrested. He was carrying a heavy machine gun, which is forbidden."

      But the man -- a guerrilla -- has a permit from the coalition to carry an AK-47 but was caught with a heavy machine gun. Abu Mujahid says his men paid an Iraqi translator $600 to replace the heavy gun with an AK-47 so their colleague can go free. Abu Mujahid expected the man to be released the next day.

      But after promising another meeting and even a dinner with UPI to celebrate the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Abu Mujahid has disappeared. Neither he nor his men contacted UPI after that final meeting and their status -- whether killed or captured by the Americans, or just no longer willing to talk to reporters -- cannot be established.



      Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 22:16:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.094 ()
      In the Tank
      The intellectual decline of AEI.

      http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.wallace-…

      By Benjamin Wallace-Wells



      In 1998, John R. Lott Jr., an economist then working as an instructor at University of Chicago Law School, published More Guns, Less Crime, a book that argues that arming civilians has a substantial deterrent effect on violence. He produced data seeming to show that deaths from multiple-victim shootings dropped 90 percent in states that passed laws permitting concealed weapons. His book tipped the terms of the debate, handing the gun lobby, which had previously relied on brute politicking to win over lawmakers, a devastatingly effective academic study supporting their side. Conservative legislators in several states used his book to push through laws permitting civilians to carry guns. Lott used the book`s profile to get off the itinerant academic circuit, and land a permanent post as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Washington`s premier conservative think tank.
      This spring, two economists, Ian Ayres of Yale and John J. Donohue III of Stanford, published a paper charging Lott with falsifying his statistics. Then things really got weird. Someone named "Mary Rosh" started turning up on Web sites where Lott`s work was being discussed, claiming to be a former student of the embattled academic and defending him vigorously. Some Web loggers investigated and couldn`t find any student of his by that name. Eventually, Lott admitted that he himself was "Mary Rosh." Criticism continued to mount, though both Lott and his sponsors at AEI have argued that Ayres and Donohue`s paper contained inaccuracies of its own. Several other academics called into question separate aspects of his scholarship, the National Academy of Sciences set up an expert panel to establish whether he`d fabricated data (the panel is still investigating), and the editor in chief of Science called Lott a "fraud."



      Had Lott been in academia, he would almost certainly have lost his job--as did Michael Bellesiles, the Bancroft Prize-winning liberal historian from Emory University, who resigned after a panel found he had faked data purporting to show that fewer Americans had actually possessed guns in the 19th century than historians had previously thought. But AEI is not a university. It is a conservative think tank, operating in a world where penalties for bad scholarship hardly exist. AEI did not fire Lott, or reprimand him, or even investigate him. The institute`s president, Christopher DeMuth, repeatedly refused to even answer reporters` questions about the incident. Indeed, several AEI fellows had warned DeMuth of their suspicions on Lott`s lack of scholarly honesty back when AEI was recruiting him in 2000. DeMuth hired Lott anyway. In an email to The Washington Monthly, DeMuth defended Lott and questioned critiques of his work, adding, "We welcome and encourage challenges to our research rather than regarding them as cause for empaneling boards of investigation."

      Since coming to AEI, Lott, not previously known as a polymath, has expanded his range of pronouncements, penning papers and op-eds on everything from the disputed votes in Florida (he published a study which seemed to show that blacks hadn`t been discriminated against, a charge which was vigorously disputed), to the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill (he`s against it) to Rush Limbaugh`s firing from ESPN for saying the media let black quarterbacks like the Philadelphia Eagles` Donovan McNabb off the hook too easily (Lott dashed off a quick regression analysis which purported to show that the media was, indeed, less inclined to criticize black quarterbacks). Last month, AEI proudly led its Web site with an op-ed by Lott, arguing that gun-safety locks "are more likely to cost lives than to save them." The scholarship of others at the think tank has been challenged. Laurie Mylroie, a leading Iraq scholar and AEI fellow, has theorized that al Qaeda is an agency of Iraqi intelligence, that Saddam Hussein was behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and that Iraqi intelligence was linked to Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols--claims dismissed by countless experts in the field, and for which Mylroie has been unable to supply credible evidence (See "Armchair Provocateur" on page 27). And James Glassman, an AEI fellow and ubiquitous pundit, hosts an influential Web magazine whose editorials frequently mirror arguments made by lobbyists for its corporate sponsors (See "Meet the Press" on page 32).

      Plenty of intellectuals offering disputed research lurk in other Washington think tanks, liberal as well as conservative--often B-team refugees from the academy who have not managed to get tenure. But AEI is in a different league, because of the influence its scholars wield in Washington and their consequent power to turn research into government policy. There`s Lawrence Lindsay, former AEI scholar and until this year head of the White House`s National Economic Council, who, among other things, counseled the president not to support new corporate accountability measures in the wake of the Enron scandal. There`s AEI scholar Leon Kass, chairman of the President`s Council on Bioethics, whose advice led the president to restrict federal funding for research on future stem-cell lines based on a gross overestimate of the number of the lines already existing (See "Science Friction" from our July/August issue). Indeed, the whole idea that regime change in Iraq should be at the center of American policy was nurtured at AEI, by current and former AEI fellows who became the architects of the administration`s war in Iraq, including de-fense advisor Richard Perle and Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Dick Cheney is a former senior fellow of the institute, and Paul Wolfowitz a former member of its Council of Academic Advisors. It is perhaps not coincidental that so many Bush administration officials formulated their policy ideas at a think tank that takes a laissez-faire view of scholastic rigor. Indeed, AEI has both enabled and been enabled by the general drift of conservative culture in Washington, one in which information from forged documents about yellowcake uranium makes its way into the State of the Union address, and a mounting GI body count is deemed a sign of the enemy`s desperation.

      Deep lobbying

      Thirty years ago, AEI was a mainstream, economic policy and political science think tank--and a number of respected centrist analysts still at the institute, like William Schneider and Norman Ornstein, embody that old style. But beginning in the `70s, and increasingly since DeMuth took over in 1986, AEI has put in place an astonishingly successful formula for attracting money and garnering influence, which has matched the increasingly aggressive style of Washington`s conservative community.

      First, AEI started courting conservative scholars outside its traditional spheres of economics and political science, particularly in the fields of social and foreign policy. These included Irving Kristol, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and other neoconservatives who felt out of place, even discriminated against, in liberal academia, and who undoubtedly brought a more clever, penetrating, disputatious intellectual style to the organization. From the start, they also used AEI as a platform from which to float scholarly-sounding ideas that had not passed academic muster, but which informed Republican policy. Irving Kristol`s protégé Jude Wanniski, the godfather of supply-side economics, used an AEI fellowship to write his 1978 book The Way the World Works, which promoted the dubious Laffer Curve, and its purported proof that tax cuts lead to more net government revenue. And Charles Murray, then as now an AEI fellow, wrote 1995`s The Bell Curve, which argued that intelligence test score differences among the races were in part genetically determined. High-profile scholars like these also attracted large grants from conservative foundations such as Scaife and Bradley.

      Second, AEI made a strategic decision to become a major advocate of economic deregulation, hiring teams of economists to produce papers arguing for looser government oversight of particular industries. In this, the organization was not only following the currents of Washington thinking, especially within the Republican Party. It was also positioning itself to take advantage of a profound but little-noted change in the rules governing Washington`s influence-peddling game. Traditionally, business interests eager to garner public favors have relied on K-Street lobbyists to make their case directly to officials. But over the last decade, a series of reforms has severely limited the tools with which lobbyists gain access. For instance, new rules prohibit elected officials and their staffs from accepting meals that cost more than $20, meaning they can no longer accept invitations to expensive D.C. restaurants and allow the lobbyists to pick up the check. Similar restrictions on industry-funded junkets have further restricted the ability of lobbyists to "educate" officials.

      Consequently, business interests have been forced to find less rule-bound venues for the hundreds of millions of dollars they have available to influence the policy process, and think tanks have become one of the places of choice. As 501(c)3 charitable institutions, think tanks are not bound by hospitality restrictions, and so can offer public servants a movable feast of fancy policy- seminar lunches and all-expense-paid fact-finding trips to foreign countries.

      Think tanks provide ideal cover for the advancement of a funder`s economic or political agenda by shaping the intellectual atmosphere that surrounds Washington decision-makers, a process Steven Clemons of the centrist New America Foundation calls "deep lobbying." Think tank scholars enjoy more credibility when quoted in newspapers, speaking on TV, or testifying on the Hill than do paid industry spokesmen, even when both are making the same arguments, and even when the expert`s scholarship is laughably bad. And short of endorsing specific candidates for political office, there are no restrictions on what think tanks can say in these venues--or what they can write in the policy briefs that flood congressional offices.

      Such freedom is perfectly defensible. One wouldn`t want to limit scholarly free speech and inquiry. But as think tanks like AEI have garnered lucrative grants from corporations and industry trade groups, incentives have mounted to pick their experts and tailor their intellectual product to suit the givers` interests, even if that means cutting corners on scholastic rigor.

      AEI is not necessarily the most aggressive player in the "deep lobbying" game. Indeed, many of its scholars remain intellectually independent and ideologically idiosyncratic. Nor is AEI the only right-of-center think tank to advocate both deregulation and conservative social and foreign policy. It has, however, arguably done the best job of marrying these ideas into an overall worldview that supports the conservative political movement--a worldview perhaps best exemplified by AEI scholar Michael Novak, who in books like The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism argues that the government has a Christian imperative to cut taxes. It`s easy, then, to understand why AEI was so eager to recruit, and ignore the failings of, John Lott, whose arguments against gun restrictions pleased both the libertarian and social conservative wings of the GOP.

      Of course, conservative think tanks have no monopoly on ridiculous theories, sloppy research, agenda-driven reasoning, and pathological groupthink. All of this is endemic to many universities, where liberal scholars reign and Democrats--more so than Republicans--turn to for policy ideas, expertise, and validation. The difference is that academia is governed by some basic rules of conduct. Books and papers are peer-reviewed. Up-and-coming scholars know that their work will be scrutinized by tenure committees. Universities have established procedures to investigate accusations of fraud and punish those found guilty of it. Think tanks, by contrast, have few such systems of internal checks. Behavior that would be considered a firing offense in academia is not necessarily considered in the think-tank world, especially when a scholar`s work advances the institution`s political mission and attracts funding.

      It`s a good thing, of course, that think tanks provide a place for out-of-the-box thinkers with controversial views. But think tanks should also provide guardrails to ensure that the work of these scholars is not specious or fraudulent.

      Considering the direct connection between the research put together at AEI and the policies made at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it`s in everyone`s interest that those ideas and that research be as sound as possible. Empowering the IRS to do a better job of making sure non-profit think tanks are not abusing their non-profit status might help. But that`s not going to happen under the current administration, and no one should want the federal government in the business of regulating thought. Think tanks could voluntarily put in place more checks on dubious research. But there is no incentive in the current environment in Washington for them to do so. Think tanks like AEI will only change if and when the elected officials who use their ideas as the basis for policy decide that those ideas are getting them in deep political trouble.

      Unfortunately, a lot of damage can be done between now and then.



      Benjamin Wallace-Wells is an editor of The Washington Monthly.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 22:51:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.095 ()
      Das passt alles zusammen, diese Demonstration, die Erklärung von Khatami, wie von Inferno berichtet, und dann auch die Forderungen der Shiiten- Führer im Irak.

      Man will die USA einlullen, genauso wie Khomeni.

      Als Ende der 70 die Unruhen gegen den Schah (auch ein USA
      Produkt)immer gewaltätiger wurden, saß Khomeni in Paris, bis er gerufen wurde.

      Dann ist er im Triumpf in Teheran eingezogen.

      Es hat nicht lange gedauert bis seine Revolutionsgarden durch den Iran zogen und das Land terrorisierten und die US-Botschaft besetzten und die USA und ihren Präsidenten Carter demütigten und dafür sorgten, dass er nicht wieder gewählt wurde.

      Auch alles was jetzt abläuft ändert nichts daran das die USA immere noch der "große Satan" ist.

      Dann gibt es noch einige offenen Rechnungen.

      Einmal das im Stich lassen der Shiiten in 91, als die USA Saddam ungestört die Aufständigen Shiiten hat abschlachten lassen.

      Und jetzt auch wieder die Verletzungen der Ruhe der heiligen Stätten der Shiiten durch die USA.

      M.M.alles erst Taktik, um an die Macht zu kommen.

      Dann wird man weitersehen.


      SPIEGEL ONLINE - 05. Dezember 2003, 18:10
      URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,277168,00.html
      Bagdad

      Schiiten organisieren pro-amerikanische Demo

      Ungewohnte Nachrichten aus Bagdad: Mehrere hundert Schiiten demonstrierten gegen den Terrorismus und für den Frieden. Noch am gleichen Tag wurde die Hauptstadt von der Realität eingeholt.

      Bagdad - Fire Demonstranten dankten auf Spruchbändern den Amerikanern für die Freiheit und den Ländern, die Truppen in den Irak entsandt haben, für die Opfer, die sie erbringen.

      Doch am gleichen Tag wurde bei einem Bombenanschlag auf einen US-Konvoi in Bagdad mindestens drei irakische Zivilisten und ein amerikanischer Soldat getötet. Ein ferngezündeter Sprengsatz explodierte, als der Militärkonvoi und ein voll besetzter Kleinbus durch den Vorort Neu-Bagdad fuhren. Unter den Todesopfern sei auch ein Passant gewesen. Bei der Explosion, die sich etwa 500 Meter von der Samarrai-Moschee entfernt ereignete, wurden auch zahlreiche Menschen verletzt. Der Kleinbus mit etwa 20 Sitzplätzen wurde völlig zerstört.

      Das US-Militärkommando in Bagdad bestätigte den Tod eines US-Soldaten. Bei einem weiteren Angriff auf einen US-Konvoi in Bagdad sei ein amerikanisches Militärfahrzeug zerstört worden, berichtete der arabische Fernsehsender al-Dschasira. Das US-Militär bestätigte nach Angaben des US-Senders CNN, dass bei diesem Zwischenfall ein Soldat verletzt worden sei.




      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 23:06:55
      Beitrag Nr. 10.096 ()
      Published on Friday, December 5, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
      Oh The Little Saddams We Weave
      by Jeremy Scahill

      There is a despot in Iraq, ruling with an iron fist from the comfort of his luxury palace on the banks of the Tigris River. He oversees a ruthless military force and a web of repressive domestic "intelligence" thugs that have terrorized Iraqis for decades. His name is not Saddam Hussein; it`s L. Paul Bremer.

      Some like to call Bremer the governor of Iraq, others politely refer to him as the US Administrator. But what he really is is Saddam`s successor. This week, as the US death toll in Iraq rose, as more Iraqi (and Iranian) civilians paid the heavy price of the occupation, Bremer had more pressing issues to attend to. He finally got around to fixing up that shabby old palace of his. He paid an Iraqi firm $27,000 to remove 4 larger than life busts of Saddam`s head from the palace compound. "I`ve been looking at these for six months," said Bremer as the first head was being removed, "so I am delighted to see them coming down. We`re sick of them."

      In case you might be thinking that the weekend cleaning job at Bremer`s riverfront mansion might not be the best use of US taxpayer dollars or that there may be more pressing needs in Iraq like electricity, clean water and education, there is something you have to understand. Bremer is just complying with the law.

      "According to the rules of de-Baathification, they have to come down," said Charles Heatly, a spokesman for the occupation authorities. "Actually they are illegal."

      Remember back in 1998, as the Clinton administration geared up to bomb Baghdad, when we were inundated with talk of Saddam`s palaces. How Saddam lived in luxury, while ordinary Iraqis suffered. He had swimming pools while most Iraqis didn`t have clean water. He was usurping Iraq`s resources for his own excesses. And on and on.

      Bremer and the military commanders he rode into Baghdad with wasted no time in picking up from where Saddam left off as they swiftly occupied the dozens of palaces across Iraq. Out went Izzat Ibrahim from the marbled palace in Tikrit, in came Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division. Out went the Republican Guard; in came the marines. Out went Saddam`s administrative offices; in came Bremer`s. The US has converted a former Republican Guard resort into-drum roll please - a resort for US soldiers: Camp Relaxation.

      But it is not just the high life in lavish palaces that Bremer shares with his predecessor.

      Iraqi television has gone from airing the ramblings of Saddam and his deputies to airing the statements of Bush, Bremer, Rice, Rumsfeld and a slew of US military commanders. One American soldier working on establishing the "new" Iraqi media said many of the Iraqi journalists are referring to the US commanders working with them as "Little Saddams."

      The US has put scores of Saddam`s thugs on the payroll of the new regime. Many of them kept their same positions, just with a new supervisor: Uncle Sam. And one of the most striking similarities between Saddam and Bremer is that neither of them seems too eager to have democratic elections in Iraq.

      In recent weeks, the country`s leading Shi`ite clerics have dramatically escalated their demands for direct elections of an interim Iraqi government to take over from the US occupation forces. They want one person, one vote and an end to the era of US-appointments. They want the United Nations to organize and oversee the elections. Seems reasonable enough. The problem is the US doesn`t want elections if the "wrong" candidates are going to win.

      The forces most opposed to direct elections in Iraq are Washington and the imported "opposition" leaders like the CIA-backed Ahmed Chalabi. The Shi`ite religious leaders are well aware, as many analysts have observed, that if elections were held tomorrow, the religious parties would win. Regardless of their motives, the clerics are calling for democratic elections and it is the US that is putting up the roadblocks.

      Washington and its proxies on the Governing Council say that the country is too unstable for fair elections because of the risk of attacks on voters and candidates. They want local caucuses of mostly appointed representatives to select a national assembly, which would then "elect" the leadership.

      As the Shi`ite leaders have pressed their case for elections, the US has said that due to a lack of a census, elections would be impossible. Now, The New York Times reports that US officials have just rejected a plan for a quick census of the country`s population that would allow Iraq to hold national elections in nine months.

      Followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani told the Atlanta Journal Constitution this week that there may be direct actions if the US prevents elections. "The time has come for us to get our rights," said Sheik Abdel Mehdi al-Karbalayi, al-Sistani`s representative in the Shiite holy city of Karbala. "I`m not saying there will be military action. Maybe it will be civilian. But there will be instability."

      Even the current chair of the US-appointed Governing Council, Shi`ite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, warned last week that there would be "a real problem in the country" if the US prevented direct elections. "It is not possible that a people who spent decades under oppression and sacrificed so many lives are not allowed to directly participate."

      So far the only political campaigning that has been allowed in Iraq was George W Bush`s 2 1/2 hour Thanksgiving tour of the Baghdad airport.

      From his palace on the banks of the Tigris, Paul Bremer is starting to look like Iraq`s version of Katherine Harris. As we learned in Florida in 2000, elections are not a process; they are a question. And there is only one right answer. When Saddam held his last referendum on his presidency late last year, there was just one choice for Iraqi "voters": Yes or no. The way things look now, Iraqis may not even be granted that much of a say in their newly "liberated" country under Bremer.

      But not all is lost. At least Paul got rid of those annoying statues of his predecessor`s head.

      Jeremy Scahill is a producer and correspondent for the nationally syndicated radio and TV program Democracy Now! He spent most of 2002 reporting from Iraq. He can be reached at jeremy@democracynow.org.

      ###
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 23:15:44
      Beitrag Nr. 10.097 ()


      BUSH: GIGANTIC BRONZE BUSTS OF SADDAM WERE WMD

      Planned To Drop Them From Great Heights, Squish Foes


      President Bush revealed today that the four gigantic bronze busts of Saddam Hussein demolished by the U.S. this week were not merely huge monuments of the former dictator as originally suspected, but were actually the weapons of mass destruction that motivated the U.S. to invade Iraq earlier this year.

      "Now that we have secured these gigantic and deadly heads, the search for weapons of mass destruction is officially over," Mr. Bush said. "Mission accomplished -- again."

      Citing "new intelligence reports," Mr. Bush told reporters that Saddam had planned to use military aircraft to dangle the fearsome, helmeted heads high above the ground, letting them drop at an opportune time to squish his foes below.

      In addition, Mr. Bush said, there is "new evidence" that Saddam intended to mass-produce the enormous bronze busts of himself for export to Syria, North Korea and other rogue states.

      "Thanks to the good work of our coalition, free people everywhere must no longer live in fear of being squished to death by one of Saddam Hussein`s gigantic bronze heads," Mr. Bush said.

      While the President would not detail what plans the U.S. had for the enormous, lethal heads, one Pentagon proposal under consideration would involve melting them down and fashioning them into one gigantic bust of Vice President Dick Cheney.

      In a plan tentatively named Operation Mammoth Bronze Cheney, the bust would then be dropped on Saddam Hussein the moment he comes out of hiding.

      Elsewhere, in a sign that the President is serious about sending Americans to the moon, Mr. Bush today added the moon to the Axis of Evil.

      **** WATCH ANDY BOROWITZ ON CNN`S AMERICAN MORNING ****
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.12.03 23:41:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.098 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 09:56:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.099 ()
      Bomb Explodes in Center of Kandahar

      Saturday December 6, 2003 8:46 AM


      KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) - A bomb exploded in the center of Kandahar on Saturday, causing an undetermined number of injuries, an official said.

      The blast happened in Chawk Shida district, the commercial center of the southern Afghan city.

      ``There are casualties, but we don`t know how many,`` said Khan Mohammad, the city`s military commander.

      Mohammad said initial reports suggested the bomb was contained in a car, but a police officer at the scene said he believed it was carried on a bicycle.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 10:27:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.100 ()
      NATO
      Blair blitzt bei Bush ab im Streit um EU-Verteidigung

      Brüssel · 5. Dezember · wtr · Dem britischen Premierminister Tony Blair ist es nach Informationen der Frankfurter Rundschau nicht gelungen, den US-Präsidenten George W. Bush im transatlantischen Streit um eine eigenständige EU-Militärstruktur zum Stillhalten zu bewegen. Ein Telefonat zwischen den beiden in Irak eng Verbündeten brachte am Donnerstagabend kein Ergebnis. Es soll ein weiteres Gespräch folgen.

      Damit ist das Schicksal der britisch-deutsch-französischen Verabredung über den Aufbau von Nato-unabhängigen Führungsstrukturen weiter unklar. Vor allem für Blair ist es innenpolitisch wichtig, dass die US-Regierung ihre bislang extrem harsche, öffentliche Kritik an diesem Vorhaben einstellt und sich zumindest zu einer stillschweigenden Duldung durchringt. Ob die USA von ihrer bisherigen Haltung noch vor dem EU-Gipfel am kommenden Freitag abgebracht werden können, ist fraglich. Die Staats- und Regierungschefs werden sich auf dem Gipfel zur EU-Verfassung auch mit einer engeren Militärkooperation in der Union beschäftigen. Eigene Führungsstrukturen gelten dabei als ein Schlüssel für eine europäische Sicherheitspolitik.

      Bundesaußenminister Joschka Fischer rechnet mit Zustimmung der USA zu den geplanten gemeinsamen Militärstrukturen der Europäischen Union. Fischer erklärte am Freitag in Berlin, er habe den Eindruck, dass Amerikaner wie Kanadier verstanden hätten, dass die EU-Pläne nicht gegen die Nato gerichtet seien. Sie seien vielmehr Europas Beitrag zu gemeinsamen Sicherheitsstrukturen. Er glaube, die Bedenken der amerikanischen Freunde seien ausgeräumt.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 10:34:24
      Beitrag Nr. 10.101 ()
      The selfish generation
      We allow marketeers to dictate our social norms - with dire results

      Jenni Russell
      Saturday December 6, 2003
      The Guardian

      Queuing in a branch of WH Smith some months ago, I was a captive audience while one shop assistant told another about an encounter with an elderly woman who was looking for a book that wasn`t on the shelves. The assistant had not known and not cared where the book might be found, and the old lady had asked if she could be more helpful. "So I told her to fuck off," was the assistant`s triumphant punchline.

      A friend in a precarious industry, shattered by his third redundancy in three years, made an appointment with the local careers service to discuss other options. The adviser didn`t bother to turn up for the first appointment, or for the second. There was no apology and no explanation. My friend wasn`t prepared to be humiliated by asking for a third. "Just when you feel like a piece of rubbish, they treat you like one," he said.

      An acquaintance on a newspaper, a tough and experienced journalist, felt so continuously unwell that her doctor decided she was going through an early menopause. Then her hypercritical and contemptuous boss moved on, and her symptoms disappeared.

      One factor links many of the miseries we inflict upon one another, from anti-social behaviour to bullying at work and our encounters in public places. It is our lack of respect for others, coupled with our obsession with being treated with respect ourselves. And the less respect we encounter, the less prepared we are to offer any to anyone else. It`s no longer true that most people aspire to having good manners; many just want to protect their egos in every social encounter. Conscious of our jealous sensitivity to any slight, we go out into the public arena armed only with our own willingness to be aggressive or oblivious in response.

      We live in a culture where the primacy of the self and its satisfactions is everything. We are bombarded with messages telling us that we should have what we want because we`re worth it. As consumers, we are kings. We know that we have rights, that brands seek our favour; that as long as we can pay, we feel powerful. We like that sensation. It is seductive because it is so at odds with the reality of the rest of our lives. As workers and producers we are under more pressure and feel more insecure than ever before. Our private lives are increasingly unpredictable; our financial futures uncertain. There is no general respect for mundane lives, well lived, in a popular culture that celebrates wealth, beauty, celebrity, notoriety and youth. Most of us cannot feel confident about our worth and about the regard in which we are held.

      This conflict between our sense of entitlement and our shaky sense of self-worth enrages us. At work many of us bolster ourselves by struggling to assert our superiority to others. Managers who crave the respect of their staff, but fear they don`t have it, create the semblance of it by frightening those underneath them. They are too concerned with maintaining their status to think about the damage they are doing to their subordinates. Service staff who feel their jobs are beneath them often make their disdain clear by doing them as gracelessly as possible. Minor officials take pleasure in exercising obstructive petty authority.

      This behaviour matters enormously because we are social animals, critically dependent on the reactions of others for our well-being. Two centuries ago the Earl of Chesterfield, writing to his son, warned him that men will forgive any quarrel or criticism, except one. They cannot tolerate being treated with contempt. Last month new scientific research demonstrated that the brain reacts to a social snub in just the same way as it does to a physical injury. In effect, by our thoughtless and self-protective behaviour, we are going through our days delivering small social injuries to one another, each one of which is felt as acutely as physical pain.

      Some of this is caused by our confusion over the end of deference. Freed from old social codes, we can be reluctant to show respect to anyone, in case it appears to diminish us. Much of it, too, is simply carelessness, or lack of time. We know, and are often embarrassed by, our own sensitivity. We know how easy it is to feel negligible when powerful people ignore emails or job applications or requests for help. We know that we can be made furious by a bus driver ignoring us at a request stop, or feel ridiculously uplifted by the unexpected kindness of strangers. But we don`t ascribe such power or significance to our own behaviour.

      The people most vulnerable to hurt are those whose self-worth is already undermined by those around them: bullied workers, mothers who have given up work, recent immigrants, people in menial jobs. Those with the least money and the least authority are made continually aware of others` contempt. But the erosion of concern for others is taking place at all levels of society. The wealthier you are, the more protected you are from the consequences. Prosperous people can largely pay others to be nice to them. Yet they too practise and suffer from the new selfishness.

      Fewer people now observe the conventions of good manners. They accept invitations, only to withdraw at the last minute when something more desirable appears. At formal events, some people are ruthless about ignoring a neighbour in favour of a more useful guest. The old idea that one had a social responsibility towards one`s host or fellow guests is beginning to be replaced by a determination to maximise one`s individual satisfaction, regardless of the emotional injury caused to anyone else. The values of the market are openly invading the social sphere. Why practise duty when you could make a contact or secure a gain?

      The answer is that we are all diminished by this behaviour. If every social encounter is reduced to a self-marketing opportunity, we will all, at some point, be made savagely unhappy. It may work, temporarily, for the powerful and desirable. But at some time every one of us will experience failure, be perceived as dull or grow old. We all want to be valued as human beings, rather than commodities. It is the generosity and tolerance of others that makes our lives bearable.

      The human, social and economic cost of our lack of mutual respect is enormous. Consider the wasted emotional energy, the destruction of confidence and creativity, and the alienation that results from it. Anxious and undermined, we hand on humiliation to others, then deplore the dissolution of social bonds. The industries that surround us will do nothing to reverse this trend. They make their money and find their audiences by appealing to our egos.

      We cannot allow marketeers to establish our social norms. We need to find ways to re-establish the encouragement of empathy, respect and consideration towards the people around us. The existence of those values acts as a social safety net, connecting us to one another. They make us feel happier and less threatened by the world in which we live.

      It`s another burden to be taken up by schools. It`s also a task for companies, which need to pay much more than lip service to the proper treatment of the people within them. But it`s an individual responsibility too. It takes thought. This morning I didn`t swear at the van driver who blocked my car, and I was neither impatient nor frosty with the checkout woman who swiped my shopping so slowly that I was 10 minutes late for my son at school. It`s nothing to be proud of. What did you do today?

      jenni.russell@blueyonder.co.uk


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 10:38:08
      Beitrag Nr. 10.102 ()
      Stuffed by a plastic turkey
      Bush`s gesture politics suggest a man seriously worried about his career

      Mark Lawson
      Saturday December 6, 2003
      The Guardian

      The 1980s movie The Ploughman`s Lunch took its title from an early example of what we have now come to know as spin. Ian McEwan`s script took its central image from the fact that the bread-and-cheese snack that claimed to link yuppies in pubs to their ancestors who toiled on the soil was an invention of the contemporary advertising and catering trades. In Richard Eyre`s film, this fraudulent food became a metaphor for political lying and pretence at the time of the Falklands war.

      If anyone makes a similar film about the attack on Iraq, the title would now have to be The Plastic Turkey. In a revelation certain to be taught at schools of democracy and journalism for years to come, it has been revealed that the apparently appetising turkey that President Bush carried towards beaming troops last week in Baghdad had been genetically modified to a degree that would lead even the most profit-hungry farmers to protest. The bird was the kind of model used by butchers and Hollywood set-dressers.

      Following this disclosure, the president is, unlike his political prop, stuffed: with a gap in the storyboards for his re-election commercials. A picture intended to say to viewers "The Eagle Has Landed", in fact spelled out: "This Bird Never Flew."

      The fakery went further. The hoax roast in the president`s hands cannot even be claimed as a symbolic stand-in for the steaming birds that were actually served. Reports say that the US troops were given airline-style meals of pre-packaged meat. And the pretend chef had flown to Baghdad in an Air Force One that filed a fake flight-plan, pretending to be a small corporate jet.

      The latter act - though embarrassing for a politician who promised to end the easy lying of the Clinton years - can probably just about be excused as security. But the affair of the plastic turkey can only be attributed to insecurity.

      Although the image of George Bush, until recently, was of a man who could do whatever he wanted in both America and the world, recent events have suggested a man seriously worried about both his image and his career. The president seems to have entered a phase of gesture politics, and the gestures are those of a man who, while still swimming vigorously, has suddenly come to accept the possibility of drowning.

      Apart from risking his life to deliver a stunt turkey to the Baghdad mess, the president is now set to revive the US space programme: it`s rumoured that Nasa will, this month, announce new missions to the moon. And a man accused of imperial arrogance has even made a significant concession to the rival powerbase of Europe by abandoning protectionist steel tariffs. It can be argued that this is a cosmetic move - because Bush had already lost the votes of the steel states in the US - but the move indicates a politician much less happy than he once was to be seen as isolationist.

      Even during an American election cycle, the apparent decision to aim for the moon is surprising. The original lunar programme grew out of the bipolar political world of the cold war. Kennedy was only interested in landing in the Sea of Tranquillity because of the fear that the Russians might splash down first. Now, with only one superpower, it will be not a space race but a space lap-of-honour or training run for America.

      It`s a measure of Bush`s reputation that environmentalists have already accused him of planning to rob the moon of mineral deposits or light. But there`s another possibility. A pattern is emerging in which the Bush White House - like a child hiding its face at a bad memory - seeks to replace a negative image with a positive one.

      The original Gulf war photo-op planned for use in the 2004 election campaign was the commander-in-chief landing a jet on an aircraft carrier that flew the banner: Mission Accomplished. Now that Mission Impossible might be a more fitting message to fly from US ships, a substitute image was needed for the militaristic bits of the ads. This was provided by Dubya as carver-in-chief on Thanksgiving Day. The mooted new moonshots are calculated to wipe from the collective memory the images of the Challenger disaster.

      If the president were to use the plastic turkey of Baghdad in commercials now, his opponents would make a real meal of it, so Bush 2004 needs some other photo-ops. Perhaps the new Nasa plans indicate that he intends to disguise Air Force One as a rocket and stage a photo-shoot on the moon.

      Whatever the details, the message is clear. Though he still lacks anything as pesky as a plausible Democrat opponent, Dubya is starting to fear that his administration may become the second one-term turkey served up by the Bush dynasty.

      comment@guardian.co.uk


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 10:43:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.103 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 10:46:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.104 ()
      Intelligence heads under fire
      Former chief delivers damning attack over Iraq war

      Richard Norton-Taylor
      Saturday December 6, 2003
      The Guardian

      A former intelligence chief yesterday delivered a scathing attack on his successors, saying they abused their position by helping Tony Blair to make a case for war against Iraq.

      He accused the heads of Britain`s intelligence agencies of bowing to government pressure to use secret intelligence to justify a war when other arguments "were cutting too little ice with the public".

      In a damning assault, Sir Rodric Braithwaite, a former chairman of Whitehall`s joint intelligence committee, the JIC, told the Royal Institute for International Affairs that intelligence chiefs allowed their objectivity to be undermined.

      The JIC, whose members include the heads of MI6, MI5, and GCHQ, "stepped outside its traditional role", said Sir Rodric. "It entered the prime minister`s magic circle. It was engulfed in the atmosphere of excitement which surrounds decision-making in a crisis".

      He added: "Its members went beyond assessment to become part of the process of making and advocating policy. That inevitably undermined their objectivity."

      One reason why the government claimed in its controversial September dossier that "intelligence confirmed" Saddam Hussein`s weapons threatened British interests was because their "other arguments for war were cutting too little ice with the public", said Sir Rodric.

      "But we live in a democracy, and in a democracy the government should not try to justify its actions on the basis of information it is not prepared to reveal."

      Secret intelligence was unlikely ever to provide the killer fact, the certainty which would alone justify an exception, he added. The public was always entitled to be sceptical of claims to the contrary.

      Though he mentioned no names, he made it clear his main target was John Scarlett, the chairman of the JIC who developed a close relationship with Alastair Campbell, Mr Blair`s former communications director, as they drew up the September dossier.

      Sir Rodric described the dossier as "a pretty muddled affair". Though it was titled Iraq`s Weapons of Mass Destruction, large passages were not about that at all, he said. They were about "Saddam`s unpleasant regime and his unpleasant secret policemen. Much of the information in the dossier was in the public domain. Much of it came from the UN inspectors".

      He added: "Much of the rest was said to be either `indicated` or `confirmed` by intelligence. I have no idea what that intelligence actually was. But the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq does not inspire confidence."

      He attacked the way the dossier warned that Saddam could "deploy" weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. It spoke of an "imminent" or "current" threat. The press and the public came to alarming conclusions. The headline in the Sun was 45 Minutes to Doom, he said.

      He continued: "This illustrates an iron law about the way drafting committees work. In the effort to get consensus, the drafters lose sight of what words mean to the ordinary reader."

      Sir Rodric pointed out that Lord Hutton was told the phrase "WMD" simply meant that Saddam could fire chemical shells from field artillery.

      In a reference to Mr Scarlett - a candidate to succeed Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, next year - and Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, he said two witnesses to the Hutton inquiry, into the death of the weapons expert Dr David Kelly, said it was not their fault if the press misinterpreted them.

      "That is absurd", said Sir Rodric. "One writes in order to be understood by one`s audience. The JIC and Downing Street have only themselves to blame if the public failed to grasp what they were trying to say".


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 10:50:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.105 ()
      Kissinger approved Argentinian `dirty war`
      Declassified US files expose 1970s backing for junta

      Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
      Saturday December 6, 2003
      The Guardian

      Henry Kissinger gave his approval to the "dirty war" in Argentina in the 1970s in which up to 30,000 people were killed, according to newly declassified US state department documents.

      Mr Kissinger, who was America`s secretary of state, is shown to have urged the Argentinian military regime to act before the US Congress resumed session, and told it that Washington would not cause it "unnecessary difficulties".

      The revelations are likely to further damage Mr Kissinger`s reputation. He has already been implicated in war crimes committed during his term in office, notably in connection with the 1973 Chilean coup.

      The material, obtained by the Washington-based National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act, consists of two memorandums of conversations that took place in October 1976 with the visiting Argentinian foreign minister, Admiral César Augusto Guzzetti. At the time the US Congress, concerned about allegations of widespread human rights abuses, was poised to approve sanctions against the military regime.

      According to a verbatim transcript of a meeting on October 7 1976, Mr Kissinger reassured the foreign minister that he had US backing in whatever he did.

      "Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed," Mr Kissinger is reported as saying. "I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems, but not the context.

      "The quicker you succeed the better ... The human rights problem is a growing one ... We want a stable situation. We won`t cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help."

      One day earlier, October 6 1976, Adml Guzzetti was told by a senior state department official, Charles Robinson, that "it is possible to understand the requirement to be tough". Mr Robinson is also reported as saying that "the problem is that the United States is an idealistic and moral country and its citizens have great difficulty in comprehending the kinds of problems faced by Argentina today".

      "There is a tendency to apply our moral standards abroad and Argentina must understand the reaction of Congress with regard to loans and military assistance. The American people, right or wrong, have the perception that today there exists in Argentina a pattern of gross violations of human rights."

      The US ambassador to Argentina, Robert Hill, had been putting pressure on the regime to stop human rights abuses. But after Adml Guzzetti returned from Washington, Mr Hill wrote from Buenos Aires to complain that the Argentinian foreign minister had not heard the same message from Mr Kissinger.

      Adml Guzzetti had told the ambassador that Mr Kissinger had merely urged Argentina to "be careful", and had said that if the terrorist problem could be resolved by December or January, "serious problems could be avoided in the US". Mr Hill wrote at the time: "Guzzetti went to US fully expecting to hear strong, firm, direct warnings on his government`s human rights practices. He has returned in a state of jubilation, convinced that there is no real problem with the USG [government] over that issue."

      The then US assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Harry Shlaudeman, who attended both the Kissinger and the Robinson meetings with Adml Guzzetti, replied to Mr Hill: "As in other circumstances you have undoubtedly encountered in your diplomatic career, Guzzetti heard only what he wanted to hear. He was told in detail how strongly opinion in this country has reacted against reports of abuses by the security forces in Argentina and the nature of the threat this poses to Argentine interests."

      However, as the newly released documents make clear, Adml Guzzetti was correct to believe that the regime had, in effect, been given carte blanche by the US government to continue its activities.

      In a previously released cable, Mr Hill reported how his human rights concerns were dismissed by the Argentinian president, Jorge Videla: "[The] president said he had been gratified when Guzzetti reported to him that secretary of state Kissinger understood their problem and had said he hoped they could get terrorism under control as quickly as possible.

      "Videla said he had the impression senior officers of the USG [government] understood situation his government faces, but junior bureaucrats do not. I assured him this was not the case. We all hope Argentina can get terrorism under control quickly - but to do so in such a way as to do minimum damage to its image and to its relations with other governments. If security forces continue to kill people to tune of brass band, I concluded, this will not be possible."

      The revelations, which were also announced at a conference in Argentina yesterday, confirm suspicions at the time that the regime would not have continued to carry out atrocities unless it had the tacit approval of the US, on which it was dependent for financial and military aid.

      The junta, which ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983, fell after the military`s defeat in the Falklands war. During its period in power an estimated 30,000 people may have been arrested, tortured and killed. Many bodies have never been found.

      An investigation into those crimes has begun in Argentina.

      Mr Kissinger has been asked by the Chilean authorities to give evidence in connection with human rights abuses during the 1973 Chilean coup and the support he gave to the former dictator, General Augusto Pinochet. He is likely to be asked to do the same in Argentina.

      He reportedly does not travel abroad without consulting his lawyers about the possibility of his arrest.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 10:53:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.106 ()
      Latinos call for strike over California drive ban
      Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
      Saturday December 6, 2003
      The Guardian

      Millions of Latinos in California are being asked not to work, shop or attend school next Friday in protest at the new governor Arnold Schwarzenegger`s repeal this week of a bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain driving licenses.

      Latino organisations are calling for support for the strike, and are warning of more to come.

      In September the former governor Gray Davis hurriedly signed a bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to get driving licences. The move was seen as an attempt by him to win votes in his unsuccessful poll battle last month.

      The vast majority of the state`s illegal immigrants are from Mexico and Central America. Schwarzenegger campaigned strongly against the bill, which had angered conservative voters because it seemed to endorse illegal immigration. One of his first acts after taking office was to repeal it, and he received cross-party support for the move.

      Latinos account for 45% of California`s workforce. Many service industries are almost entirely reliant on their labour and much of the agricultural industry is also dependent on them.

      The Mexican American Political Association has backed next Friday`s economic boycott. Nativo Lopez, president of the association, said: "This strike will be the first of many in the next few months."


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 10:57:20
      Beitrag Nr. 10.107 ()
      Samarra und kein Ende, was geschah wirklich in Samarra? Wer lügt?

      A bloody victory or dangerous fantasy? The true story of the battle of Samarra
      By Phil Reeves in Samarra
      06 December 2003


      Nearly a week has elapsed since the American military issued the startling claim - puzzling even some within its own ranks - that its troops killed 54 guerrillas during running gunfights in the Sunni town of Samarra.

      Official versions described how dozens of Fedayeen guerrillas wearing red or black chequered headscarves and dark shirts and trousers attacked troops in the bloodiest engagement since the US-led occupation of Iraq last April - and lost.

      Repeated visits to the scene, interviews with Iraqi civilians and US soldiers, and close inspection of the battle damage by scores of correspondents have failed to eliminate several troubling and crucial questions. Where are the bodies? Did they exist? Or was this death toll - as some suspect - a fabrication which was intended to generate positive headlines for the US, after a disastrous weekend in which guerrilla attacks killed 14 foreigners, including seven Spanish intelligence officers?

      All occupying armies lie, and so do their opponents. But Iraq is particularly perilous territory, given that so many millions of people believe the invasion was launched on the false pretext that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

      Samarra is a small, angry pocket of resistance on the banks of the Tigris. And it smouldered anew yesterday as two Apache helicopters circled only a few score feet above the rooftops, not far from the gold dome of the Ali al-Hadi Shia shrine, just minutes before Friday prayers. People were infuriated by an incident a few hours earlier in which an elderly shopkeeper, Abdel Rasul Saleh al-Abassi, was shot on his rooftop. His relatives say he was shot by a US sniper while trying to repair a water tank.

      Accounts of last week`s battle differ, sometimes alarmingly. But on one issue, they have remained adamant: only eight people were killed in Samarra, although 55 were injured as the US army sprayed the place with gunfire.

      "If 54 people were killed here we would know. This is a very tribal society, in which everyone in the area knows everyone else," Yahir Mahmoud al-Abassi, a businessman, said. "It just did not happen. It`s impossible."

      The people of Samarra are not alone in their scepticism. A senior official from the occupation authorities in Baghdad said, with evident exasperation: "We said this would happen ... it isn`t right."

      There is no doubt that two US convoys came under attack on Sunday morning as they were arriving to deliver new Iraqi dinars to two banks, the al-Rashid in Babel Kabla Street and its other branch opposite the al-Risala mosque in Bank Street. Surrounding buildings in both areas - which are about half a mile apart - bear the scars of fierce gunfights.

      The US says troops of the 4th Infantry Division entered Samarra at about 11am, with a force of some 100 soldiers, six tanks, four Bradley fighting vehicles and four Humvees.

      With them were two squads of military police and four squads of infantry. The convoys entered town at opposite ends, and both were attacked with roadside bombs. The attacks seem to have been well-planned.

      Both the US military and Iraqi residents agree that the ensuing battles lasted for several hours. The guerrillas used small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars; the US army fired their 120mm cannon on the Abrams tanks, 25mm machine-guns mounted on their Bradley fighting vehicles and armoured Humvees, and their own personal arms - M-16 rifles and pistols. As running battles spread through the town, some of the shooting was random.

      At about 1.30pm Falah Hamid Salman, 48, a clerk, was in the front office of the Samarra Drugs Factory when a mortar shell landed near the front gates. Workers were queuing near by for a shift change. Amira Mahdi Saleh, an employee in her mid-thirties, was killed.

      Mr Salman said bullets from passing US armoured vehicles smashed into the reception area. It bears the marks of at least five machine-gun bullets. Other mortar shells landed further inside the premises, injuring Hossam Shakir al-Douri, 25, who later died.

      As the fighting flowed back and forth through the town, with guerrillas darting through the alleys, Abdullah Amin al-Kurdi was mown down outside a small mosque in front of the local hospital. His 10-year-old son, who was with him, survived with leg and stomach injuries. Another man, Raid Ali Fadhel, also died there.

      Not far away Salem Mohammed al-Rahmani, a businessman, was inspecting his premises just a few yards from the Shia mosque when the US forces swept in and - he says - posted snipers on the roof. This was the scene of one of the ambushed bank deliveries. A firefight erupted, which injured Gazal Jado`a al-Bazi and killed Fatah Allah Hijazi, a 71-year-old Iranian pilgrim.

      What happened in Samarra was a battle - and a big one at that. But the evidence suggests that the victims were mostly civilians, not guerrillas, and that their numbers were far fewer than US officials have said.

      The US army is increasingly sensitive on the subject. Lt-Col George Krivo angrily accosted The Independent on Wednesday. "I can tell you one thing - we trust our soldiers!" he said, half-shouting.
      6 December 2003 10:54


      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 11:25:21
      Beitrag Nr. 10.108 ()
      The Associated Press/Ipsos Poll
      News On Economy, Medicare Bill Passage And Bush Visit With Iraq Troops Stabilize Bush Re-election Support


      Category: The Associated Press / Ipsos Poll
      Location: United States
      © Ipsos Public Affairs
      Public Release Date: December 6, 2003






      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Washington, D.C. — Since the last national Ipsos poll, conducted the week before Thanksgiving, there have been three big news stories that have had the net effect of stabilizing definite support for the re-election of President Bush, according to a poll for The Associated Press conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. In this inaugural AP/Ipsos Poll there are also signs that Democratic opposition is coalescing against Bush and, especially, the direction Bush is leading the country.

      The Associated Press Poll was conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs between December 1-3, 2003, with 1,001 adults nationwide (margin of error of +/-3.1%). Political questions were asked only of registered voters (765 adults and a margin of error of +/-3.6%).

      The Economy

      The economy is an unmixed good news story that helps Bush. Fewer have negative feelings about the current local economy than at any time since the shadow of 9/11, according to the AP/Ipsos Poll.


      People in the AP/Ipsos Poll are as optimistic about the direction of the local economy as they have been in two years.

      Respondents also feel a little better than they did a year ago about their progress in being able to make major purchases and other purchases—good news for retailers as the holiday shopping season opens.


      In the AP/Ipsos poll, respondents prove especially confident about job security and the ability to save and invest in the future—two key indicators of deep-seated financial security that have proven historically to be the foundation of consumer confidence that leads to economic growth.


      The Bush Thanksgiving Visit To Troops In Iraq

      The situation in Iraq — with Bush`s telegenic Thankgiving visit to the troops balanced against a month with more American casualties than any month this year (including the months last Spring of major military actions) — gets mixed reviews. Young people in particular are less likely than others to approve of Bush’s handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism, and that spills over into low approval ratings overall and on his handling of the economy from 18-to-29-year old voters.

      Legislative Victory on Medicare Bill

      The legislative situation — passage of the Medicare Bill — is giving Bush much less of a bump. In fact, older voters age 50+ are less likely than younger voters under age 30 to approve of Bush`s handling of non-economic domestic responsibilities like health care and other issues, even though older voters are in every other measure more positive toward Bush than the youngest voters.

      Bush Re-Election Standing

      Overall, Bush has solidified his position, recovering from slippage on his reelection score from what it was a year ago, back when voters were 15 points more likely to say they`d definitely vote for Bush (44%) rather than definitely not support Bush (29%). Through the summer, that number fell from a double-digit Bush advantage in early June to a lead in the 5-point to 12-point range through the rest of the summer, then a range of 0 to 7 points throughout the fall. It is at the higher end of that range (+5 points, 41% definitely re-elect to 36% definitely vote for someone else) today.


      The shape of Bush support looks like a lopsided Liberty Bell. He is extremely weak among the youngest voters, strong with voters in their 30s and 40s, weaker among older voters


      Bush is strongest in the Midwest and West, especially the Great Plains and Mountain states, weakest in the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast — and quite weak in the South (although in the Oil Patch states of the South, Bush does well on his own re-elect, Republicans do not do well on Congressional party preference in the Oil Patch).





      There is a strong economic class pattern to responses, with the vote split among those in the middle-income ranges




      The only hint of bad news for Bush: Opposition is coalescing. Throughout 2002-2003, Republicans have been more monolithic in their support of Bush, Democrats not quite so unified in opposition. Now there are cracks in the monolith and unified opposition (on whether the country is headed in the right direction, Democratic women are far more negative than Republican women are positive, for example).



      There has also been some rallying of Democrats behind their leaders. In the Democratic primary/caucus poll roll-up, several candidates tie or outpoint "Other/None/Not sure." In September and before that, "Other/None/Not sure" generally out-pointed every live candidate in the race.
      [/url]






      For more information on this, please contact:

      Thomas Riehle
      President, Ipsos Public Affairs
      Washington, D.C.
      202.463.7300
      http://www.ipsos-pa.com/dsp_displaypr.prnt.cfm?ID_to_view=19…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 11:33:09
      Beitrag Nr. 10.109 ()
      Für alle für die in #10102 zu viele Zahlen sind, hier die Kurzfassung des Polls.
      Eine Entwicklung, die zu erwarten war nach den aufpushenden Wirtschaftsdaten.

      December 6, 2003
      Poll: Optimism on Economy Boosts Bush
      By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

      Filed at 4:12 a.m. ET

      WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans are growing more optimistic about the economy and that shift is beginning to improve President Bush`s standing with voters, according to an Associated Press poll.

      People are increasingly comfortable about job security for themselves and for those they know -- 44 percent now, compared with 35 percent in early October.

      And more approve of the way Bush is handling the economy -- 50 percent compared with 45 percent earlier, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Support for his handling of other domestic issues like education, health care and the economy, at 47 percent, has not shifted significantly.

      The president`s re-election numbers have slightly improved, with 41 percent saying they will definitely vote for him and 36 percent definitely against him. One in five is considering voting for someone else. In mid-November, people were evenly split, 37 percent for and against.

      ``I`m mulling over what I`m going to do in the next election,`` said Eydee Nelson, a mother of two young girls in Fort Collins, Colo. ``I feel like the economy is picking up. That definitely makes me more sympathetic to the president`s re-election,`` said Nelson, who turned 32 on Friday.

      The economy is showing mixed signs of recovery: rapid growth that surprised most economists last quarter, indications the job market could be turning around, a rebound in the stock market over the past six months. But the nation has lost 2.3 million jobs, the turnaround in employment is uncertain and states hard hit by revenue losses are making cuts.

      Baby boomers, college graduates and men in general were among the groups more likely to show signs of increased optimism in the AP-Ipsos poll.

      ``Confidence is improving,`` said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis. ``It`s a trend, not a blip. While it`s not at the level it was in 1999 and 2000, we clearly are coming off the bottom.``

      The poll found the percentage of people who say they`re more comfortable about job security is higher than for those who say they`re not, 44 percent to 37 percent. In early October, more were uncomfortable.

      If the economy continues to improve, Bush is expected to benefit.

      ``If things are going well, it`s more than likely he`ll get a good bit of credit for it,`` said Doreen Hartley, a 48-year-old computer programmer who lives in Newtown, Pa., near Philadelphia.

      While improvements in Bush`s ratings were usually small, the upward shifts were reflected in several poll questions. The public remains sharply divided about the president, but the economic optimism seems to have halted his slide in the polls. Also, his Thanksgiving trip to visit the troops in Baghdad was generally well-received.

      Bush`s job approval among registered voters was at 53 percent, with 44 percent disapproving. In mid-November, his approval was at 50 percent, so the shift is not as much as the poll`s 3.5-point margin of error for registered voters.

      The public`s overall mood about the direction of the country was slightly improved from November.

      In the new poll, 43 percent said the country was headed in the right direction, and 51 percent said it was on the wrong track. In mid-November, 38 percent had a positive view, and 56 percent said wrong track.

      Divisions on Bush are still apparent.

      ``I think he does a good job on some things,`` said Bill Rogers, a 69-year-old retiree from Farnsworth, Texas. ``On other things like the war in Iraq, I think he made a mistake.``

      While a majority of people support the president on foreign policy and the campaign on terror, they remain closely divided on his re-election.

      Joseph Caporino of Hoboken, N.J. said he would consider voting for someone other than Bush.

      ``It depends on the other candidates in the race and what they have to say,`` the 54-year-old account manager said. ``There`s no sense putting another jerk in there. At least Bush has already been in for a while.``

      The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults was taken Dec. 1-3 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

      ^------

      On the Net:

      Ipsos Web site: http://www.ipsos.com

      Multimedia presentation will be available at http://datacenter.ap.org/wdc/poll.html



      Copyright 2003 The Associated Press
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 11:37:44
      Beitrag Nr. 10.110 ()
      December 5, 2003
      Q&A: Who is the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani?

      From the Council on Foreign Relations, December 5, 2003


      Who is the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani?

      The most important Shiite cleric in Iraq, a nation that is 60 percent Shiite. This means the reclusive 73-year-old leader wields a tremendous degree of influence over the nation`s future, experts say.

      What are his views on postwar Iraq?

      Sistani has tacitly supported the U.S. occupation of Iraq and wants the members of Iraq`s transitional and permanent governments--as well as the framers of a new Iraqi constitution--chosen through direct elections. He also wants Iraq to be an Islamic state. This concerns U.S. policymakers, who would prefer a secular Iraq. "If Sistani gets everything he wants at this stage, you`ll have the Islamic Republic of Iraq up and running," says Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service.

      What is the source of Sistani`s power?

      He is a revered Islamic thinker and one of the most respected Shiite clerics in the world. Experts say most of Iraq`s Shiite Muslims turn to Sistani for guidance on how to live their lives in accordance with Islamic law.

      What kind of Islamic state does Sistani want?

      Sistani has said that no law in Iraq should conflict with Islamic principles, and he wants Islam to be recognized in law as the religion of the majority of Iraqis. He has not promoted an official role for Islamic clerics in Iraq`s new government; clerics play such a role in neighboring Iran. Some experts say Sistani`s religious philosophy favors creation of an Islamic state that, compared with neighboring Iran, would seem moderate. "Sistani is not a [Ruhollah] Khomeini" [the spiritual leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran], says Yitzhak Nakash, professor of Middle East Studies at Brandeis University and the author of "The Shi`is of Iraq." Some U.S. Iraq experts believe Sistani could support an Islamic state that is compatible with elections, freedom of religion, and other civil liberties, and a government that is perhaps more religious than Turkey`s, but more inclusive than Iran`s. Others are less sure.

      What is the difference between Sistani`s philosophy and that of Iran`s government?

      The Iran revolution deepened a growing disagreement within the Shiite community over the proper relationship between religion and politics, says Juan Cole, an expert on Iraqi history at the University of Michigan. Ayatollah Khomeini was a proponent of an Islamic political theory that emerged in the mid-20th century called velayat-i-faqih, or rule by Islamic jurist. This theory backed the idea that governments with authority over Shiites should be run by religious clerics in accordance with Islamic law. A more traditional Shiite position--often called quietism--holds that clerics shouldn`t get involved in day-to-day affairs and instead should serve as an authority independent from politics. Sistani has long favored the quietist tradition.

      Has Sistani expressed opinions about the occupation of Iraq?

      Yes. While he has not made any public appearances since the occupation`s start, he has issued guidance to Shiites about the proper response to the war and has met with visitors and issued statements from his office in Najaf, one of Shiism`s holiest cities. Members of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council meet with Sistani, as did former U.N. Special Representative Sergio Vieira de Mello (who later died in the August 19 bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad). Sistani has refused to speak with L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the U.S. occupation authority; he has not given a reason for his reluctance to meet with Bremer.

      What has he said?

      Sistani`s first statements after the start of the war were viewed as tacitly supportive of the U.S.-led effort to depose Saddam Hussein. He counseled followers that they could work with the occupiers--as long as, at the end of every conversation with them, they "would ask [the occupiers] when they were leaving," Nakash says. "Sistani has been very, very helpful as far as the American presence in Iraq is concerned. Because of him, the insurrection has not spread to the Shiite areas," Nakash says.

      Sistani has also condemned some aspects of the U.S. plan to return sovereignty to Iraqis. In June, he issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, stating that the framers of Iraq`s constitution had to be elected, not appointed as favored by some governing council members and U.S. officials. In November, he issued another statement saying that elections--not a system of regional caucuses organized by the coalition--would be the proper way to select a transitional government.

      What is the reaction to his statements?

      They are taken seriously, because losing Sistani`s support would deeply compromise the legitimacy of the coalition`s actions and could lead to resistance on the part of his followers, according to some recent press reports. Sistani`s June fatwa helped shift U.S. planning on how the constitution would be written--in effect, delaying the process so that an election could be held. His November statement has thrown the Bush administration`s latest plan to create a transitional government into doubt. The governing council and coalition must now decide how seriously to take Sistani`s call for transitional assembly elections. If they heed him, the fear is that it will set a precedent that allows a Shiite cleric the final say in politics. On the other hand, if they ignore him, "any government they put in place now will collapse after they leave," Nakash says. "We cannot over-push the secular democratic card--we must be realistic. The government created has to reflect the will of the majority of the people."

      Why does Sistani support elections?

      In part because they are the most legitimate expression of the will of the Iraqi people, Sistani argues. If chosen through elections, "the parliament would spring from the will of the Iraqis and would represent them in a just manner and would prevent any diminution of Islamic law," he wrote in his November statement. Analysts also say that Sistani appears to believe that Shiites, as the majority in Iraq, will affirm Islamic ideals if given the chance. "I think he sees democracy as a way of getting what he wants. He doesn`t fear it," Katzman says.

      Do Sistani`s recent statements indicate that he is taking a more activist approach to politics?

      This is the fear of administration officials and others, who believe that Sistani may be carving out a Khomeini-like role in Iraq by acting as the dominant power behind the scenes, Katzman says. He has been meeting regularly with members of groups thought to be sympathetic to Iranian-style Islamism, including governing council members affiliated with the Islamist group al-Da`wa and the Supreme Council for Revolution in Iraq. Other experts, however, say that while Sistani is speaking out more than he did under Saddam Hussein`s regime, there is little evidence that he would call for resistance from his supporters if he does not get his way. Because he is so respected, there may be little need for such dramatic steps, Cole says. "What`s more likely is that he will stand by his position and eventually, when the Americans leave, he will get what he wants," he adds.

      What is Sistani`s background?

      Sistani was born near the Iranian city of Masshad, a holy place of Shiite pilgrimage centered on the tomb of Imam Reza, the eighth Shiite imam. At age five, Sistani began studying the Quran, the Muslim holy book, and continued his studies as a young man in the Iranian city of Qom, according to Sistani`s website, sistani.org. His rise to eminence began when he moved to the Iraqi city of Najaf in 1952. There he studied with the some of the most important Shiite clerics of the time, including the Grand Ayatollah Imam Abul Qassim al-Khoei, a major figure in the quietest tradition. When Khoei died in 1992, Sistani was selected by his peers to head the most important hawza--or network of schools-- in Najaf. He has written many books on Islamic jurisprudence, and over the years has gained a reputation as one of the top Shiite religious authorities in the world. Some 10 percent to 20 percent of the world`s 1.4 billion Muslims are Shiites.

      Did Sistani have any rivals for leadership of the hawza?

      Yes, Cole says. One of the most important was Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, who was gunned down in 1999 along with one of his sons (Saddam`s forces are suspected in the murder). Sadr preferred the more activist, Khomeini-like tradition, urging underground resistance to Saddam`s rule. Sadr and other critics portrayed Sistani as a timid coward and referred to him derisively as the "silent authority," Cole says. Today, Sadr`s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, considers himself a rival of Sistani and calls for his followers to resist the occupation.

      How are Iraqi Shiite leaders chosen?

      They rise by consensus through the ranks, from the level of prayer leader to ayatollah, a title awarded to those who have exhibited mastery of Islamic law and jurisprudence and have attracted many followers. The apex of the hierarchy is the marjah al-taqlid, or object of emulation. Sistani has attained the level of marjah.

      What`s the role of a marjah?

      A marjah has the authority to interpret Islamic law and provide guidance to Shiites on day-to-day matters. All lay Shiites, Cole says--even relatively non-religious ones--have a marjah. His admonitions are often related to mundane questions of so-called personal law, such as whether a Muslim is permitted to wear perfume (yes, according to Sistani) or sell lottery tickets (no--it`s a form of gambling, Sistani says). While more than one marjah is followed in the Shiite world today, Sistani is probably the most influential, Cole says.

      Is the marjah speaking in the name of God?

      No, Islam experts say. He is practicing ijtihad, which is defined as the competence to use independent judgment to decipher the Quran and other sacred Islamic texts. Only the most advanced clerics are awarded permission by the hawza to practice ijtihad. The interpretation of a marjah is his best judgment and can sometimes be wrong. But according to Shiite tradition, as long as the marjah gives the interpretation his best effort, Allah will forgive any error, Cole says.

      --by Sharon Otterman, staff writer, cfr.org.



      Copyright 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 11:50:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.111 ()
      Die Arbeitslosigkeit wird der Schlüssel für die Wahl sein und dadurch dass über 100 000 neue Arbeitskräfte auf den Markt drängen, brauchen die USA ~ 200 000 neue Jobs pro Monat um die Arbeitslosenquote zu senken.
      Dann darf man die nicht vergessen, die aus Mangel auf Aussicht auf Erfolg in keiner Statistik augenblicklich auftauchen, die sehr schnell bei einer Erholung wieder im Panel erscheinen würden.
      In der Arbeitslosenstatistik sind noch mehr Fallen.

      December 6, 2003
      Too Few Hires, Still

      America`s gross domestic product grew at a China-like 8.2 percent rate in the third quarter. The productivity growth and manufacturing activity numbers released this week were the best in two decades. Corporate profits are at record highs, consumer confidence is rising, and interest rates remain low. All of which makes November`s anemic jobs report, released yesterday, so disappointing. It was, to be fair, the fourth-consecutive month of added jobs, and the unemployment rate dropped to 5.9 percent. Still, the 57,000 jobs created in the month were far below expectations, and fell short of the 200,000-plus needed per month, on average, to reduce the unemployment rate substantially.

      The "glass half-empty" report added fuel to the ongoing debate among analysts. The bulls think that it is only a matter of time before strong job growth kicks in, while pessimistic observers argue that structural changes — things like technology-driven productivity gains and the outsourcing of labor — foreclose any major improvement.

      In our view, it is too early to write off this economy`s ability to produce millions of new jobs during a sustained expansion. There is always some time lag between robust economic activity and robust hiring, and there are signs that hiring will start picking up. Companies typically meet the initial surge in demand without adding new employees, until they are convinced that good times are here to stay or they deplete their stocks of inventory.

      That is certainly the Bush administration`s perspective. Speaking at a Home Depot in Maryland, President Bush was quick to hail the drop in the unemployment rate as a sign that the economy is improving.

      The administration would naturally like to claim credit for the recovery. But it must also accept responsibility for the bad news. World markets are in fact giving Washington economic policy makers a vote of no confidence. That is the only way to interpret the dollar`s recent baffling, and sharp, decline.

      America`s economic performance would ordinarily translate into an appreciation of its currency, but the dollar has been trading at all-time lows against the euro. That is partly because foreign investors are alarmed by the lack of credible economic stewardship, as evidenced by our reckless federal deficit and opportunistic protectionism.

      Our debt-ridden society has long lived beyond its means, and gotten away with it, because foreigners are eager to stash their money here. America currently needs roughly $50 billion a month in capital inflows to make ends meet. This situation cannot be sustained forever, and a lack of confidence in Washington`s economic policy making could hasten the day of reckoning.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 11:53:19
      Beitrag Nr. 10.112 ()
      December 6, 2003
      OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
      One More Seat at the Table
      By PARAG KHANNA

      WASHINGTON

      A special United Nations panel meets this weekend to consider how to make the organization, particularly the Security Council, more effective in a more dangerous world. No nation has more of an interest in its success than the United States. Far from undermining American power, a stronger United Nations can extend American influence while also making unilateral action by the United States unnecessary in the future.

      The search for lasting security in postwar situations — Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia, Sudan and Congo — will require the United States to fundamentally revise its strategy toward global peace enforcement. Only by promoting broad United Nations reform will other countries see incentives in committing to burden-sharing where the United States needs it. And only then will the United Nations be able to tackle the world`s other trouble spots, ultimately contributing to America`s goals of democratization and counterterrorism.

      Every country agrees on the need to reform the Security Council, but no single proposal has ever had majority support. What is necessary — a comprehensive re-evalutaion of the council`s membership — has not been politically feasible. And what has been politically feasible — adding already overrepresented developed countries — is not necessary. The United Nations has grown to 191 members from an initial 51, yet the Security Council has been expanded only once, in 1965, to its present 15 members. However, the composition of the Security Council can be made both more democratic and more friendly to the United States if the White House works to win support for a framework that encourages responsible leadership from countries in the world`s more volatile regions.

      A realistic proposal would continue to have the United States, Russia and China as permanent members, but would include Japan, the largest aid and reconstruction donor, and India, a crucial ally in the war on terror as well as potential contributor of troops. With Japan and India, the United States can work around Chinese intransigence and outweigh Russian opposition.

      The French and British seats would be collapsed into one permanent seat for the European Union, to be occupied by the country holding the union`s rotating presidency. Having long argued for a strong geopolitical voice for the union, France would face a choice between selfishly blocking this proposal or achieving that vision, under heavy pressure from new powers that stand to gain from such reforms.

      Furthermore, a more prominent role for regional organizations would result in deepened diplomacy within them as they work toward common positions. Permanent seats should be allocated to the Organization of American States, the League of Arab States and the nascent African Union, each represented by their members on a rotating basis.

      This regional integration could accelerate the creation of regional peacekeeping forces, which could alleviate the strain on American forces in Iraq and the international forces in Afghanistan, as well as to stabilize Colombia and Indonesia. The Security Council has proved far more willing to approve regional peacekeeping efforts like the Nigerian-led mission in the Ivory Coast, particularly as the United Nations` current peacekeepers are thinly stretched in more than a dozen conflict zones.

      The inclusion of permanent seats for developing countries and regions would also enhance perceptions of American sincerity toward historically neglected states that truly value their voice in the United Nations.

      But most importantly, if the United States sincerely wants a more effective Security Council, it will have to relinquish its veto power in favor of majority voting. No country has more frequently exercised its veto right, while simultaneously denouncing other nations` use of it.

      As the United States` image abroad continues to be tarnished by slow progress in securing Iraq and Afghanistan, no step could more greatly contribute to restoring American credibility internationally than a reaffirmation of the commitment to work with, rather than around, a reformed and stronger United Nations.


      Parag Khanna is a senior research analyst on global governance at the Brookings Institution.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 11:59:01
      Beitrag Nr. 10.113 ()










      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 12:04:23
      Beitrag Nr. 10.114 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 12:09:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.115 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 12:17:59
      Beitrag Nr. 10.116 ()

      The Green Zone Restaurant and Coffee Shop offers employees of the U.S. government and its contractors alternatives to cafeteria food. The restaurant was created by local Iraqi entrepreneurs.

      Niemand hat die Absicht eine Mauer zu errichten oder sie betreten jetzt den amerikanischen Sektor oder auch: fragen Sie Mr. Sharon.

      washingtonpost.com
      Baghdad`s U.S. Zone A Stand-In For Home
      An Isolated Retreat For Busy Americans

      By Ariana Eunjung Cha
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Saturday, December 6, 2003; Page A01


      BAGHDAD -- In Elzain Elzain`s Baghdad, they serve peanut butter, lobster and ice cream. The cell phones have a 914 area code. The television sets show Monday Night Football. The people speak English. And the strictly enforced speed limit is 35 mph.

      "It`s like I never left America," said Elzain, an artist from the District who works as an interpreter for the U.S.-led occupation government.

      Elzain and several thousand other government workers, contractors and soldiers live and work in what is called the Green Zone. The four-square-mile area, encircled by 15-foot concrete walls and rings of barbed wire, includes Saddam Hussein`s presidential palace compound, which is now the headquarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority that rules Iraq.

      Once an oasis of fabulous architecture, date palms and swimming pools, it is now an eerie mix of shiny white trailers, SUVs, Black Hawk helicopters and other symbols of occupation and ruins created by months of bomb, rocket and mortar attacks.

      Some residents say they prefer the comfort of surroundings like home and are happy to stay here, rather than venture out into the real Iraq. But most people say they came to help -- and for the adventure. Their greatest frustration is that they feel trapped inside the Green Zone.

      Officials say the idea was to create a "safe area" where civilian advisers and military officials trying to help the country could do their work with less risk than in Baghdad proper. In the early days of the occupation, the creation of the enclave was the subject of much debate between the United States and the United Nations, which based its staff in a hotel on one of the city`s busiest streets because it felt it needed to be out in the neighborhoods and accessible to the Iraqi public. But after two devastating attacks on the U.N. personnel, the philosophical debate has been replaced by the reality of the security situation. Nearly all U.N. workers have gone to neighboring countries.

      Venturing from the protection of the Green Zone is not just a chore, it`s a feat. Forms must be filled out explaining the reason for the outing, requesting transportation and a protective detail. Some trips must be rescheduled three or four times, with recent trips to visit children at an orphanage, to speak at a women`s center and repair a water treatment plant postponed because of security concerns.

      The seclusion, many readily concede, is compounding the challenge of the reconstruction.

      "The Americans are behind the walls in the palace. They have difficulty knowing what`s going on. I call it the `green area syndrome,` " said Frank Dall, project director for District-based Creative Associates International Inc., which is assisting the U.S. Agency for International Development with education reform and is housed outside the zone.

      "You want to feel like you are of the people. But when you are here there are rules and you can`t go out and you can`t talk to them," Elzain said. "You are isolated."

      Freedom Park


      The heart of the Green Zone is the Republican Palace, a huge horseshoe-shape building where the interim government officials, the foreign "advisers" to the Iraqi ministries live and work.

      Inside, there are marble hallways and velvet chaises mixed in with office equipment and plastic lawn chairs. Hussein`s gilded throne sits in a conference room that has become a church for Christians and a praying area for Muslims. On the ceiling there`s a fresco showing horses jumping into a brilliant blue sky; on one wall there`s another showing the launch of Scud missiles, reportedly toward Israel. The cafeteria, run by U.S. contractor KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton Inc., has retro silver tables that look like part of a "Happy Days" set. Signs printed on computer paper and taped to the walls direct visitors to offices.

      Near the swimming pool in the back is a giant television screen, which usually is showing sports events. On the rare occasions when people are able to break away from work, they come out here, often in shorts and T-shirts. There`s a new gym with free weights and yoga classes.

      Around the main palace are smaller but just as grand buildings, a convention center, a hospital, a military command center.

      Some companies that work with the coalition government have separate camps. Bechtel Inc., which has a major contract to rebuild power plants, schools and other infrastructure, is based in a trailer park near Uday Hussein`s palace. The one small luxury is a tiny recreation room with twin pool tables and satellite TV. Next door, the Research Triangle Institute, which is helping set up local representative councils, has modeled a garden in its complex after one at its North Carolina headquarters.

      The streets are populated by joggers and people in casual clothes carrying around cell phones that are part of the only operating network in Iraq, run by MCI Communications Corp. To reach someone, even just a few miles away in Baghdad, you call an upstate New York area code.

      Because of concerns that food could be poisoned or contaminated, nearly everything is imported. Cases of Aqua Gulf bottled water come from Kuwait and the frozen food is sent from the United States.

      Some local Iraqi entrepreneurs set up the Green Zone Restaurant and Coffee Shop to provide an alternative to cafeteria fare. The most popular choice is an Iraqi grilled chicken, says the 54-year-old owner, who goes by Abu Fadi, or father of Fadi. The second and the third choices: American hamburgers and pizza -- that is, the Iraqi versions.

      The restaurant is popular because people are looking for a break. The accommodations befit summer campers more than royalty. Many junior workers sleep by the dozens in the hallways of the Republican Palace or in trailers. Almost without exception, people work seven days a week, from 8 a.m. to at least 8 p.m. and sometimes until midnight. The only break comes on Friday, traditionally the weekend in Iraq. But that`s only because the country`s top civil administrator, American L. Paul Bremer, ordered it. And it`s only for the morning.

      There are smaller versions of the Green Zone throughout the country, in the various provisional government command posts. In the Kurdish town of Irbil, the Coalition Provisional Authority`s bunker is inside a new luxury hotel high on a hill overlooking acres of lush farmland. In Fallujah, just west of Baghdad, the food in the compound is served by waiters in white shirts, black pants and black bow ties. And in Mosul, north of the capital, symbols of Hussein`s regime in the palace compound have been replaced by the screaming eagle banners of the 101st Airborne Division.

      Even on the sparsest military base in the most remote area, residents have gone to great lengths to re-create at least some of America. In Sinjar near the Syrian border, for example, the commander ripped pictures of fitness equipment out of a magazine and a local builder created barbells and other weightlifting equipment for a gym at the camp.

      In or Out?


      Government officials have no choice but to live in the Green Zone. For contractors, deciding whether to be in or out is among the most agonizing questions they face.

      When Dall began scouting offices in Baghdad in the spring, he felt strongly that Creative Associates` workers should be in the neighborhoods and accessible to local Iraqis. The company rented houses, in which the staff lived and worked. But now the street in front of their three villas is closed to traffic. A new booth was built to house the armed guards who pat down every visitor. The effect is a mini-Green Zone outside the Green Zone.

      In late October, contractors were spooked by warnings of "imminent" attacks in the Karrada District of Baghdad where many are staying. As a result, 55 employees of McLean-based BearingPoint Inc. fled their hotel and set up a camp in the Green Zone. Interpreters, cleaning workers and others who work for the coalition have also begged for space in the Green Zone.

      But recent nighttime mortar and rocket attacks inside the zone have forced many to question the wisdom of any such moves. Bechtel has barricaded its compound with two new layers of sandbags. RTI is scoping out a new place across the Tigris River because it is so difficult for consultants to get in and out and do their jobs. Elzain and some co-workers from Worldwide Language Resources Inc. are thinking about leaving, too.

      Elzain, 38, who is on leave from the Museum of Contemporary Art DC, lives in a trailer north of the palace. Living outside the zone would help his sense of belonging to the country he came to assist, he said. But though he loves his job helping out with interrogations of detainees, he will be eager to get home when his one-year contract ends next fall.

      "Sometimes you feel really homesick," he said, "despite the fact that everything here is American."




      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 12:21:30
      Beitrag Nr. 10.117 ()

      Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) calls the Army readiness situation "dangerous."

      washingtonpost.com
      Army Will Face Dip in Readiness
      4 Divisions Need to Regroup After Iraq

      By Vernon Loeb
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Saturday, December 6, 2003; Page A01


      Four Army divisions -- 40 percent of the active-duty force -- will not be fully combat-ready for up to six months next year, leaving the nation with relatively few ready troops in the event of a major conflict in North Korea or elsewhere, a senior Army official said yesterday.

      The four divisions -- the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne, the 1st Armored and the 4th Infantry -- are to return from Iraq next spring, to be replaced by three others, with a fourth rotating into Afghanistan. That would leave only two active-duty divisions available to fight in other parts of the world.

      Briefing reporters at the Pentagon, the official said the four returning divisions will be rated either C-3 or C-4, the Army`s two lowest readiness categories, for 120 to 180 days after they return as vehicles and helicopters are overhauled and troops are rested and retrained.

      C-3 means a division is capable of performing only some of its combat missions, and C-4 means a division needs additional manpower, training or equipment to fight a major regional war.

      A fifth division, the 3rd Infantry, which returned from Iraq in August, is still not fully ready to return to combat, the official said.

      While the Army had been using 120 days as its standard for "resetting" divisions returning from overseas deployments, overhauling the divisions returning from Iraq could take as long as 180 days because of the extreme weather in Iraq and the unprecedented magnitude of the planned troop rotation.

      The four returning divisions will bring 650 helicopters, 5,700 tanks and other tracked vehicles and 46,000 wheeled vehicles with them, the official said. "This is not Hertz rent-a-car, where you drive [vehicles] for two years and you get rid of the fleet," he said. "We have to take good care of our tanks . . . and all the other equipment. Because we don`t get to buy new."

      Once those divisions return from Iraq, Army readiness will be at its lowest point since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Since then, Army officials have tried to keep divisions at the highest, C-1 readiness level.

      This dip in readiness could have political consequences for President Bush, who sharply criticized the Clinton administration during the 2000 campaign for allowing two Army divisions to fall to the lowest readiness category in 1999 because of peacekeeping obligations in the Balkans.

      "Obviously, this is much worse in terms of the numbers," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who has called for increasing the size of the Army. "This is an indication of the stress the Army is under."

      With all of the Democratic presidential candidates criticizing Bush`s handling of the war in Iraq and his overall stewardship of foreign policy, the strategic implications of the Army`s low readiness rates could also become an issue in the campaign.

      "It`s called dangerous," said Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.), ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who has been calling for 40,000 more Army troops -- the equivalent of two divisions -- since 1995. "The purpose of the military is to stand ready, to face dangers as they appear. Afghanistan came out of the blue, and fortunately we were able to respond."

      The Army official acknowledged that four divisions rated C-3 or C-4 represent a "risk" in the nation`s strategic posture. But he added: "It`s a manageable risk. We`ve looked at this thing several ways from the joint [inter-service] perspective. It`s a manageable risk."

      A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the forces would be available if they were needed. "The fact that you have personnel, for example, on leave, or in school, does not mean that they could not be reconstituted in units on rather short order," said the spokesman, who asked not to be quoted by name. "So the idea that you`re placing the country at risk is probably an inaccurate and inappropriate way to look at it."

      Military analysts differ over the significance of divisions scoring low on the Army`s readiness rating system.

      Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a former division commander and staunch advocate of more Army forces, said four to five divisions below the C-1 rating "means literally half the Army is broken and not ready to fight."

      "We have a potential huge challenge from North Korea," McCaffrey said. "So by definition, at this point, we would only be able to respond to an emergency in North Korea with air and naval power or nuclear weapons. It`s an unacceptable, in my judgment, strategic risk."

      Michael O`Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who has written extensively about readiness, said the Army`s system for gauging readiness is suspect and should not be overemphasized.

      Although overhauling 650 helicopters used in Iraq will be a lengthy process, O`Hanlon acknowledged, the job of resetting four divisions back from Iraq would at most delay the Army`s ability to respond to a major provocation by North Korea by a month or two.

      "It`s sort of like the New York Yankees in January," O`Hanlon said. "Their readiness is lower because they haven`t gone back to spring training. But they`re still a damn good baseball team."

      The Army`s dip in readiness will almost certainly be used by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill pushing for an increase in Army troops, which Rumsfeld has thus far opposed.

      Earlier this week, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that they, along with Rumsfeld`s staff, are still trying to determine whether the requirement for Iraq, which now stands at 130,000 soldiers, is a "spike" that will soon come down, or an ongoing commitment.

      If it is a spike, they said, increasing the size of the Army may not be necessary.

      Critics of the administration respond that even the most optimistic military commanders believe 50,000 or more U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for three to five more years.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 12:45:59
      Beitrag Nr. 10.118 ()

      Saad Saffar walks through a damaged building that he is converting into an Islamic cultural center. The departing Baathists set fires to destroy their records.

      Was wird aus Baghdad bei einer Herrschaft der Shiiten. Dort sitzt in Sadr-City ein weiterer Führer der Shiiten Al Sadr. Er ist jung, heißblütig und hat den USA die Zähne gezeigt, es ist nicht klar, ob die Army freiwillig oder gezwungenermaßen aus Sadr-City abgezogen ist.
      Er scheint, so wird behauptet auch nicht gut mit den beiden anderen Ayatollahs Sistani und Al Hakim zurechtzukommen.
      Wie sich da das Verhältnis unter den Führern der Shiiten entwickeln wird, ist schwierig zu sagen.
      Jedenfalls sind über 1 Mio Slumbewohner bereit für Al Sadr zu kämpfen.
      Wie das Verhältnis in Baghad zwischen Sunniten und Shiiten ist, ist mir nicht bekannt, könnte dann aber auch zu Spannungen führen.


      washingtonpost.com

      Shiites Make Up for Lost Time
      Schools, Clinics and Mosques Now Reside in Former Baath Party Buildings

      By Alan Sipress
      Washington Post Foreign Service
      Saturday, December 6, 2003; Page A12


      BAGHDAD -- The collapse of former president Saddam Hussein`s capital was not even a week old when the Shiites staked their claim to the local Baath Party headquarters on Palestine Street.

      The two-story building had been looted and was still smoldering, but Khalid Lammi and the local Shiite Muslim community cleared a corner and opened a rudimentary medical clinic. Within 11 days of Baghdad`s fall in April, having begun to raise a dome over the structure, they declared it a mosque.

      A makeshift metal tower was erected on the roof, in place of a proper minaret, and festooned with eight loudspeakers to call the faithful to prayer. Posters of turbaned clerics replaced the pictures of Hussein. A huge color canvas of the Shiites` revered Imam Ali -- the prophet Muhammad`s son-in-law, whom Shiites believe is his true heir -- was draped out front.

      "For years, whenever we would come to this main street and see the building, we`d say to ourselves, `One day, when injustice is over, we will take over this building and make something good of it,` " said Lammi, a stocky cleric with a full white beard.

      This pattern has been repeated across the city as the Shiite Muslim community has snatched up dozens of properties once belonging to the Baathists and converted them to mosques, religious schools, Islamic social service agencies and clinics. While other groups have followed suit, the Shiites have been particularly aggressive in claiming the estimated 400 offices once run by the ruling party in every corner of Baghdad as part of its vast network of social control. They are asserting a role long denied them during years of repression in Hussein`s Sunni Muslim-dominated state.

      In the predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Daulaie, the local community had waited more than two decades for government permission to build a mosque, according to Ammar Musawi. Two weeks after the fall of Baghdad, they decided to wait no more. Local residents with hammers and chisels demolished a partly built Baath Party building, shoveling the gray rubble to the side.

      In its place now rise the yellow brick walls of a mosque that will accommodate 750 worshipers. Though the roof is not yet finished, tall arched windows are in place and green and black flags, the standards of Shiite Islam, flutter under drizzly skies.

      "The old building was a headquarters for terrorizing people. Our mosque will be a place of peace," said Musawi, a tall, 28-year-old cleric, as he toured the construction site trailed by elders in black-checkered headdresses and long dark robes. "The Baath Party was the instrument for destroying the cultural fabric of the people. The people have turned to the religious authorities to rebuild that social fabric."

      Saad Saffar took over some gutted Baath offices in the Atafiya neighborhood two days after Baghdad`s fall, chasing off the squatters and snapping new locks onto the gates.

      "We wanted to turn this into a mosque, but we weren`t able to get approval from the Shiite religious authorities. Although they want to have as many mosques as possible, they said they`re also interested in improving the cultural level of this area," said Saffar, an engineer turned cleric.

      He led visitors through empty corridors, still blackened by smoke, to the spacious Baath Party conference room, where looters had carried off the floor tiles. Saffar said he intended to transform it into an Islamic cultural center and wedding hall.

      In the rear of the two-story building, where he said he discovered a small torture chamber outfitted with equipment for extracting fingernails and a custom-made ceiling fan from which prisoners would be suspended and spun, Saffar plans to open a modest medical clinic. The room across the hall, still marked as a jail cell by the bars across the doorway, will be a storeroom. Upstairs will be a computer center offering courses and Internet access.

      Iraq`s informal Shiite power structure, known as hawzah, has encouraged the seizure of former party properties, according to Abdel Hadi Daraji, one of Baghdad`s most influential Shiite clerics. But he said the initiative comes from local residents and clerics, who seek hawzah`s authorization for their undertakings.

      The Shiites` ambitions, however, are at odds with the plans of the U.S. occupation and local Iraqi officials.

      In one of his first formal orders after becoming senior U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer directed in May that all Baath Party properties be turned over to the provisional government for public use. Last month, he gave the U.S.-appointed Governing Council the responsibility for managing the buildings. Officials have already catalogued 2,000 Baath Party properties around Iraq, said Charles Heatly, a spokesman for the occupation authority.

      "A lot of buildings have been occupied," Heatly said. "Where they have been used for clearly criminal and nefarious purposes, we have expelled people from the buildings. A lot of times they are used by other groups and we have not taken immediate steps to expel them."

      Ali Radhe Haidari, a member of the Baghdad City Council, said his panel recommended that the Governing Council reclaim the properties. He estimated that about one-quarter of the 400 former Baath buildings in the capital had been seized by private organizations, mainly Shiite religious groups.

      "We don`t object to the idea of a mosque. But things should be done in the right place," Haidari said. The annexations, he explained, are a challenge to the new district and neighborhood councils of Baghdad, some of which now have no offices.

      The clerics` ambitions have carried them beyond Shiite and religiously mixed neighborhoods to largely Sunni areas, such as Adhamiya in north Baghdad. Through the open door of his row home, Hussein Shamil can see the nearly completed brick dome of the Imam Ali mosque rising across the street. The construction site is on the once-landscaped grounds of a former Baath Party building, already converted to an Islamic clinic.

      "They`re using it for a Shiite mosque and following all these strange rituals," Shamil said. "The people of our neighborhood couldn`t do anything to resist them because they came here with guns. They forced themselves on this neighborhood without any approval."

      Several Shiite clerics and activists said they have begun asking the emerging Iraqi government to endorse these takeovers. They expressed confidence that Iraq`s political leaders would not uproot social institutions.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 12:49:46
      Beitrag Nr. 10.119 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Jive Turkeys




      Saturday, December 6, 2003; Page A18


      IT COMES AS NO SURPRISE that the roast turkey President Bush hoisted during his visit to the troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving Day was strictly for show, not eating. The perfect golden brown turkey is one of the great fictions of American life. In reality, a turkey seldom comes out of your oven looking that way, and if it did, it probably wouldn`t be fit to eat; in fact it might be made of papier-mache.

      Still, the artifice has to be maintained, whether in public life or in the home. Show turkeys are part of a long tradition of holiday foods that are widely admired but not actually eaten: the viscous eggnog that has nurtured a thousand potted plants, the mince pie children slip to the dog, the fruitcakes passed along from family to family and generation to generation.

      The Army, which often sets out Potemkin turkeys at holiday meals, is no different from the rest of American society in this regard; it probably lobbed some of the fruitcakes now in circulation toward German lines in 1917 (only to have them lobbed right back -- another Hun atrocity). The only question we have about the president`s turkey is how many wars it`s been through.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 12:50:38
      Beitrag Nr. 10.120 ()
      October 23, 2003
      Q&A: Who is Muqtada al-Sadr?

      From the Council on Foreign Relations, October 23, 2003


      Who is Muqtada al-Sadr?

      He is a young, fiercely anti-U.S. Shiite cleric making a bid for power in Iraq. Sadr`s belligerent sermons and the violent attacks authorities suspect they inspire his followers to commit are challenging the traditional Shiite religious hierarchy and the U.S.-led coalition. While his movement appears to involve only a small percentage of Iraq`s Shiites, experts warn that the threat he poses to U.S. aims is serious.

      What`s his background?

      His father, the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, was the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq in the late 1990s. His uncle, Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr, was a leading Shiite activist before his execution by Saddam Hussein`s forces in 1980. Muqtada al-Sadr went underground in February 1999 after a spray of gunfire--from Saddam`s agents, according to most accounts--killed his father and two brothers. He inherited a network of schools and charities built by his father, along with the allegiance of many of his followers. Only 30, Sadr lacks the decades-long religious training required of high ranking Shiite authorities. As a result, he bases his claim to authority on his lineage.

      Whom does he oppose in the Shiite hierarchy?

      He is a rival of the traditional senior Iraqi Shiite clerics led by the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Sistani, 72, has counseled patience with the U.S. occupation and retains the allegiance of most of Iraq`s 14 million Shiites, experts say. Sadr has called for the immediate withdrawal of the occupation forces and directed Shiites not to cooperate with them. His apparent goal, some Iraq experts say, is to establish an Islamic theocracy. Sistani, in contrast, has backed some form of Islamic democracy.

      Does he support violence?

      In his sermons, Sadr calls for only non-violent resistance and stops short of invoking a jihad against U.S. troops. But his supporters have been involved in a serious, and at times violent, play for power. They have attempted to take over key mosques by force, intimidated Sistani and other clerics, and--it is alleged by some coalition officials--tried to kill high-ranking Shiite rivals.

      Does he command an armed force?

      Yes. He has created an "Imam Mehdi Army" to support his political movement and impose order, a force his aides claim numbers 10,000 men. (Some reports estimate the number is more likely between 1,500 and 3,000.) His followers have clashed violently with militias supporting rival clerics. Gunmen who support clerics allegedly affiliated with Sadr have recently been involved in clashes that killed five U.S. soldiers. Experts say it`s not clear if Sadr ordered any of these attacks. But, says Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East specialist at the Congressional Research Service: "I would say he is part of the resistance right now--I would consider him an adversary to U.S. forces."

      What is his base of support?

      Young, impoverished Iraqi Shiites, many of whom are concentrated in Sadr City, a vast Baghdad slum of 2 million previously called Saddam City and renamed for the senior Sadr after Saddam`s fall. One reason for his popularity: his aggressively anti-U.S. pronouncements tap a vein of frustration among Shiites in a way that Sistani`s more moderate stance does not. Sadr`s followers have been making a play for support in Basra and other Iraqi Shiite towns. Sadr, like Sistani and the Shiite hierarchy, is based in the holy city of Najaf, where the founder of Shiism, Ali ibn Abi Taled, is buried. But in Najaf and Iraq`s other holy Shiite city, Karbala, his support remains very limited, says Juan Cole, an expert on Iraqi Shiites at the University of Michigan.

      What actions have his supporters taken to challenge U.S. authority?

      Since the fall of Baghdad, Sadr supporters have seized control of many aspects of life inside Sadr City--appointing clerics to mosques, guarding hospitals, collecting garbage, operating orphanages, and imposing Islamic dress codes, according to a report by the International Crisis Group. Because the neighborhood remained relatively peaceful--few anti-coalition attacks have occurred there--U.S. authorities did not interfere much with Sadr`s organization until September, when they arrested a Sadr-affiliated cleric who appeared to be backing attacks on coalition forces. On October 16, Sadr`s faction--whose challenges to U.S. authority were increasingly brazen--attempted to take over the building that housed the offices of the U.S.-appointed Sadr City neighborhood council and install its own leaders. U.S. forces moved in and kicked out Sadr`s men, arresting 12.

      How much support does Sadr have?

      It`s not clear. Some experts estimate Sadr has a few thousand fanatical supporters--largely those in the Imam Mehdi army--willing to take up arms on his behalf. Coalition officials estimate that Sadr`s hardcore supporters range between 300 and 3,000 men, says Drew Brown, a Knight Ridder correspondent in Baghdad reporting on the issue. "It`s a fringe movement, certainly, but anyway you look at it, I think that the numbers alone constitute a threat to public order," Brown says. In addition, some experts say that there are hundreds of thousands of additional Iraqis who are "passive" Sadr supporters. They owe Sadr some allegiance out of respect for his lineage and because of the services his social network provides, but are not willing to stand up to the Americans on his behalf. If anger at the occupation grows among Shiites, Cole warns, so could the number of committed Sadr followers.

      What violent clashes appear to have involved Sadr supporters?

      In the most intense recent clash, Sadrists and gunmen loyal to Ayatollah Sistani engaged in an 8-hour gun battle October 15 over control of two key mosques in Karbala. One man was reportedly killed; Sadr`s men were ultimately defeated.

      U.S. forces have been targeted in two recent clashes with followers of clerics tied to Sadr, according to the U.S. authorities.

      On October 9, two U.S. soldiers were killed in Sadr City when a protest demanding the release of an arrested cleric affiliated with Sadr, Moayed Khazraji, turned into an apparent ambush of U.S. forces. Khazraji was arrested September 29 on charges that he was hiding weapons in his mosque and organizing anti-U.S. violence.
      On October 16 in Karbala, three U.S. military policemen were killed in a firefight with the personal security forces of a cleric believed to be affiliated with Sadr, Sayyid Mahmoud al-Hassani. In early September, U.S. forces had killed three of al-Hassani`s men when a protest over the coalition`s searching of the cleric`s home turned violent.

      Have Sadr supporters orchestrated recent car bombings or assassinations?

      It`s not clear. Though Sadr has denied involvement, U.S. officials are investigating his organization`s possible links to high-profile attacks, including:

      The August 29 car bombing in Najaf that killed Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim--a key Sadr rival--and some 100 others outside of the shrine of Ali.
      The August 24 bomb planted outside the Najaf house of another respected rival cleric, Ayatollah Mohammed Saeed al-Hakim, wounding him and killing three others.
      The April 10 killing in Najaf of a moderate cleric, Ayatollah Abdel Majid al-Khoei, shortly after his return from exile. After the killing, Sadr supporters surrounded the home of Ayatollah Sistani, demanding that he leave Iraq. Sistani called in some 1,500 local tribesmen to end the siege.

      Has Sadr directly challenged the Iraqi Governing Council?

      Yes. On October 10, he announced that he had appointed what he called an authentically Islamic government to replace the Iraqi Governing Council, the 25-member body appointed by Coalition Provisional Authority head L. Paul Bremer III. (One member, Akila al-Hashimi, died September 25 after being shot by assassins.) But a rally in support of his Islamic government in Baghdad drew only a few hundred supporters, an indication that Sadr has, so far, failed in his bid for political power, says Yitzhak Nakash, author of "The Shi`is of Iraq" and a professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at Brandeis University.

      How have U.S. forces reacted to Sadr?

      In the first months after Baghdad`s fall, officials chose to largely ignore Sadr, downplaying his support. After the recent killing of U.S. soldiers by men believed to be tied to Sadr, and the night-long gunfight in Karbala on October 16, U.S. officials warned that they may soon have to move against Sadr`s followers. "They have begun to take some actions that are going to require the coalition to respond very forcefully," said coalition commander Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, who called Sadr`s group "an evolving threat." News reports indicate that U.S. patrols in Sadr City have already changed, with soldiers confined to armored vehicles and no longer sipping tea on the streets with the locals. "They`re taking the Sadr threat very seriously. It`s the challenge of the moment," Brown says.

      Will U.S. authorities arrest Sadr?

      While coalition officials are investigating Sadr, they have not yet attempted to arrest him. In part, some experts say, they are worried that doing so will further inflame anti-U.S. sentiments and increase his support. Some observers say U.S. forces would prefer if senior Iraqi clerics would more aggressively condemn the young upstart. Others suggest co-opting Sadr by inviting him to run in a democratic election or join the interim Iraqi government. For now, says Cole, "they [coalition authorities] don`t know what to do." When coalition forces capture Sadr`s supporters, "they arrest them, keep them, then release them."

      -- by Sharon Otterman, staff writer, cfr.org



      Copyright 2003 |
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 12:54:59
      Beitrag Nr. 10.121 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 13:14:46
      Beitrag Nr. 10.122 ()
      Fair and Balanced™ Cartoons

      Cartoon Archive
      97 New Cartoons Today sind für einen Samstag viel zu viel:

      http://www.flu-ent.com/graveyard/20031206__097toons.htm




      Erinnert an Bush Versprechen zu AIDS aus der Rede an die Nation.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 13:50:12
      Beitrag Nr. 10.123 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 14:02:13
      Beitrag Nr. 10.124 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-daug…
      THE WORLD



      Motherly Love Brought Her to Base in Tikrit
      A Tucson woman joins a group of parents, led by an antiwar group, who traveled to Iraq to see their children on active duty with the Army.
      By Patrick J. McDonnell
      Times Staff Writer

      December 6, 2003

      TIKRIT, Iraq — Anabel Valencia crossed oceans, deserts and half the globe to see her daughter, Spc. Giselle Valencia, a truck driver with Task Force Iron Horse here in Saddam Hussein`s old neighborhood.

      But you just don`t drop in at a heavily guarded U.S. military base in a war zone, even if your kid is on active duty inside.

      "Your daughter`s on a mission," an incredulous military police officer holding a fierce German shepherd advised Valencia on Friday.

      "I can wait," came the reply from the Tucson teacher`s aide and mother of three. "I came this far. I can wait a bit longer."

      Valencia, 51, born in Boyle Heights, was one of a handful of parents who traveled to Iraq this week to see their active-duty children. Another parent, Fernando Suarez del Solar, from Escondido, gathered sand from the spot where his son, Marine Lance Cpl. Jesus Alberto Suarez del Solar, was killed in March.

      The trip was sponsored by Global Exchange, a San Francisco-based activist group that opposed the U.S. invasion and is eager to spread its antiwar message. None of the parents had formal military clearance to visit their soldier children.

      Anabel Valencia`s trip provided an offbeat glimpse into the U.S. occupation in this former Baath Party stronghold.

      "I`m glad we came and got rid of Saddam Hussein — he was a dictator and oppressed his people," said Valencia, who also has a son, Chuveny Valencia, 22, who is deployed in Baghdad. "But now I think it`s time for the troops to come home and for the Iraqis to govern themselves."

      The mother says she hasn`t seen her daughter, Giselle, in three years. Giselle was stationed in Germany before being deployed to Kuwait and then Iraq this spring. Giselle dropped out of community college and worked part time at Kentucky Fried Chicken and a discount clothes outlet before joining the Army, her mother said.

      Valencia informed both of her children of her intention to travel to Iraq. Both had the same reply: Stay home.

      "They thought it was a crazy idea," Valencia said.

      Valencia left her Baghdad hotel Friday after breakfast accompanied by two veteran activists, one of them Medea Benjamin, a former California Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate and the founding director of Global Exchange. They set out for the two-hour drive to Tikrit on what has become one of Iraq`s most dangerous roads, a major north-south artery for U.S. military convoys that is the site of frequent attacks and ambushes targeting soldiers and Westerners in general.

      On the way up, the car carrying Valencia passed what appeared to be a military vehicle ablaze off the side of the road. "I hope no one was hurt," she said.

      The entourage arrived without incident slightly after midday at the gate of the sprawling compound of Task Force Iron Horse, led by the Army`s 4th Infantry Division force that occupies some of the toughest turf in the so-called Sunni Triangle. The MP with the German shepherd informed Valencia that her daughter had just decamped, driving a truck with a convoy en route to Baghdad.

      "I came all this way to see her," Valencia pleaded with the officer, who was polite, but unyielding.

      "She`s in the military, ma`am," said the MP, who declined to give his name. "She`s doing very well. She`s in excellent health." Valencia was determined to stay put until her daughter arrived, even though she was warned about the danger of traveling after dark.

      "I`m not leaving," she declared, her entourage now expanded as journalists working out of the base joined the scene. "We can stay right here tonight."

      Officers from the U.S.-trained Iraqi police arrived in blue and white cruisers after hearing of the incident.

      "We have orders to arrest any protesters," explained Capt. Mohammed Ali Hussein of the regional police in Tikrit.

      His demeanor soon softened. A dialogue ensued.

      "I think it`s terrible that the Americans will not let you in to see your beloved daughter," Capt. Hussein said. "This is the way they treat their own people! Imagine how they treat us." As the conversation continued along such lines, military convoys lumbered into and out of the gates. Black Hawk and Apache helicopters buzzed overhead, following the route of the nearby Tigris.

      Valencia was soon sharing with the police photos of her daughter in uniform — in one Giselle is behind the wheel of a military semi; in another she is seated on a plush red couch in one of Saddam Hussein`s former palaces.

      Valencia became teary-eyed. Two cops offered tissues. They were U.S.-trained and are paid by the ruling U.S.-led coalition, which regularly praises Iraqi police as the coalition`s crucial ally. But these two weren`t exactly with the program.

      "The Americans promised so much: democracy, freedom, security — now we have none of these things," said Capt. Mazen Ayash Youssif. "We were better off before. We all prefer the time of Saddam."

      The depth of their anti-U.S. conviction underscores the difficulties the military faces in winning over ordinary Iraqis, especially in the Sunni zone of central and western Iraq favored by the former regime.

      "If this is the way the people think here," concluded Valencia, "then we`re in a lot of trouble."

      One officer said he now has two likenesses of Saddam Hussein hanging in his home, one up from before the U.S. invasion. All said the former strongman would easily triumph in any democratic election — a perception not much evident beyond the borders of Tikrit, even among many other Iraqis fed up with the occupation.

      "But you were liberated from a dictator," said Benjamin, the activist, taken aback at the direction the dialogue was taking.

      Replied another officer, Mohanan Majeed Taha: "We never asked anyone to liberate us. What right did the Americans have to liberate us?"

      With the day slipping away, Army Lt. Nathan Carver approached. He informed Valencia that her daughter might not return until late, or perhaps the next day. The officer suggested that she go back to Baghdad for the evening and return today, when a visit probably could be arranged.

      "I`m so happy," said a relieved Valencia. "Now I believe I will see her."

      As nightfall approached, Capt. Hussein offered to put Valencia up at the police station and invited her to his home for a dinner of roasted sheep. "If the Americans won`t let you in, we will show you Arab hospitality," he explained. But Valencia turned him down and headed back to Baghdad.

      "I hope your daughter treats our people well, not like the other Americans," said Capt. Hussein before leaving. "Then she will be treated well in return, and God willing, remain safe."


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 14:13:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10.125 ()




      Winter storm hits mid-Atlantic, takes aim at Northeast; snowfall up to 18 inches forecast
      Gwyne, a snow monkey, takes a break from bathing in hot springs, during a snow storm at the Central Park Zoo on Friday in New York. Several inches of snow are expected in the first major winter storm of the season. Associated Press photo by Julie Jacobson
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 14:40:40
      Beitrag Nr. 10.126 ()


      Wer einmal in San Francisco war, kennt das Problem der tausenden von Homeless. Das hier ist eine 5teilige Reportage aus SF von dem SFChronicle mit Karte, Bildern und Berichten.
      Jedesmal wenn ich in SF war, hat mich dieses Problem berührt, und es beschäftigt mich auch heute noch, wenn ich über etwas über SF lese und höre.
      Dieser Bericht läuft im Zusammenhang mit der Bürgermeisterwahl am Dienstag.

      http://www.sfgate.com/gate/special/pages/2003/homeless/



      We trip over them on the sidewalk every day. We curse, hand them a dollar, or don`t. We feel pity, guilt and rage at their presence. The city spends $200 million a year trying to get homeless people off the streets and into a better way of life - but over 20 years, the problem has only gotten worse.

      The more able of the homeless find their way into shelters, counseling and housing programs. But the most chronically indigent, called the hard core, steadfastly refuse most help and stay outside. These 3,000 to 5,000 homeless at the very bottom are the most visible, and they give the city its dubious distinction of having what many call the worst homeless problem in the country.

      San Francisco Chronicle reporter Kevin Fagan and photographer Brant Ward spent four months in the streets, parks and alleys with the homeless and those who deal with them-health care workers, police, tourists, residents, businesspeople, commuters-in an attempt to answer the question: How did San Francisco, one of the most sophisticated and cultured cities in the world come to have so many people living so blatantly, so visibly, in misery?

      Mapping SF`s homeless haunts
      Layered over the city`s familiar streets and neighborhoods is a separate map seen from the vantage point of the homeless.

      Chats
      Read the transcript from the December 5th chat with the Silver family, profiled in Part 2.
      Read the transcript from the December 4th chat with reporter Kevin Fagan and photographer Brant Ward.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 14:53:49
      Beitrag Nr. 10.127 ()











      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 15:18:00
      Beitrag Nr. 10.128 ()
      KNOWN AS THE `PRINCE OF DARKNESS`
      Right-wing US politician Richard Perle
      Pentagon Adviser Faulted Over Boeing Role
      `It Stinks to High Heaven`

      Sat December 06, 2003 08:15 AM ET

      By Jim Wolf
      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pentagon adviser Richard Perle came under fire on Friday for failing to disclose financial ties to Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , even while championing its bid for a controversial $20 billion-plus defense contract.

      Perle co-wrote a guest column in The Wall Street Journal newspaper this summer praising the plan to lease then buy 100 modified refueling planes, a year after Boeing committed to invest up to $20 million in Trireme Partners, a New York venture capital fund in which Perle is a principal.

      "If ever there were an argument that traditional business practices are ill-suited for defense `transformation`, the saga of the tanker-leasing proposal would count as People`s Exhibit A," Perle and a colleague wrote in the Journal on Aug. 14.

      "It stinks to high heaven," said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based federal budget watchdog group, of Perle`s failure to disclose his ties to Boeing in the Wall Street Journal piece.


      "Mr. Perle`s entitled to his own views on the tanker deal," said Peter Flaherty, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government and corporate accountability watchdog. "We just think that the public`s entitled to know that he has a relationship with Boeing when he`s expressing his views."

      Perle`s role adds to the ethical questions dogging the tanker deal, placed on hold by the Pentagon this week for an audit of suspected contracting improprieties that contributed to the resignation on Monday of Boeing`s chief executive.

      Last month, lawmakers voted to allow the lease of no more than 20 tankers and the purchase of up to 80, rather than an approach that would have cost $5 billion or more over time.

      As a high-profile assistant defense secretary under former president Ronald Reagan, Perle carries a lot of weight in Washington. He is widely credited with helping to lay the political groundwork for the March invasion of Iraq.

      CHARGES OF INFLUENCE-PEDDLING

      Perle was overseas Friday and did not respond to requests for comment e-mailed via colleagues.

      Perle`s business interests have raised repeated questions about what critics call improper influence-peddling. On March 27, he quit as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the secretary of defense, amid allegations of conflict of interest for his representation of companies with business before the Defense Department. He remains a board member.

      Chicago-based Boeing pledged in the middle of last year to invest up to $20 million over eight to 10 years in Trireme Partners, which invests in defense- and homeland security-related technologies. It is one of 29 such investments in cutting-edge technology funds worldwide totaling $250 million, said Anne Eisele, a Boeing spokeswoman. To date, Boeing has invested $2 million in Trireme, she said.

      Boeing acknowledged in a recently released internal e-mail that it ghost-wrote several opinion pieces by prominent figures in favor of leasing tankers rather than buying them outright, as has been standard weapons-procurement policy.

      But a company spokesman, Doug Kennett, said of the Perle piece: "We did not write nor did we place it," only fact-checked it, "which is a fairly standard thing."

      The Wall Street Journal editorial-page editor who handled the column was not available for comment but "normally, we do like to disclose this kind of information," said Brigitte Trafford, a spokeswoman for Dow Jones & Co Inc. (DJ.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , publisher of the Wall Street Journal, referring to an author`s financial interests in the deal.

      Boeing said it had briefed Perle on the tanker deal in his capacity as a resident fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, a private research group. President Bush, at the institute`s annual dinner in February, said it was home to "some of the finest minds in our nation ... at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation."



      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      © Copyright Reuters 2003. All rights reserved.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 15:24:47
      Beitrag Nr. 10.129 ()
      Starting with the undated first issue of Playboy magazine in 1953 featuring America`s reigning sex symbol Marilyn Monroe, we present every cover in Playboy`s history. Playboy`s cover gallery is a mirror of America`s changing culture, evolving tastes and trends. Page through the groovy jackets of the Sixties, the trippy covers of the Seventies, the high-hair fronts of the Eighties and the voluptuous covers of the Nineties.

      http://www.playboy.com/50th/covergallery/
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 15:27:06
      Beitrag Nr. 10.130 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 15:37:37
      Beitrag Nr. 10.131 ()











      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 15:48:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.132 ()
      Robert X. Cringely: `Why the current touch screen voting fiasco was inevitable`
      Posted on Saturday, December 06 @ 09:13:02 EST
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      By Robert X. Cringely, PBS

      If you spend any time on the Internet in the U.S., it is almost impossible not to know about the scandal involving touch screen voting machines. I mentioned it a few months ago, and my goal at that time was to goad the big newspapers into looking at the story, with the idea that if there was any truth to it, the New York Times and Washington Post ought to be on the story. Well, now they are, especially the Times, which this week ran an op-ed piece by Paul Krugman that ought to make a lot of politicians very uncomfortable.

      Depending on whom you read, either computerized voting is being used to help American voters or to hurt them. The American Civil Liberties Union said in California that certain counties in the recent recall election were disenfranchised by not having touch screen voting, while other organizations suggest that touch screens were used to steal elections in Georgia. I don`t know about any of this, but I do know about Information Technology, so I suggest we look at this issue in a way that nobody else seems to be -- as an IT problem.



      Voting is nothing more than gathering and validating data on a huge scale, which these days is almost entirely the province of IT. And like many other really big IT projects, this touch screen voting thing came about as a knee-jerk reaction to some earlier problem, in this case the 2000 Florida election with its hanging chads and controversial outcome. Punch card voting was too unreliable, it was decided, so we needed something more complex and expensive because the response to any IT problem is to spend more money making things more complex.

      So the U.S. government threw $3.5 billion on the table to pay for modernizing voting throughout the land, which is to say making it more expensive and more complicated. That`s a lot of money and it attracted a lot of interest. One company in particular, Diebold Systems, went so far as to buy a smaller company that made voting machines just to get into the market. Diebold thought that being in the automated teller business was a good starting point for changing the way America votes.

      You can read in many other places about the trials of Diebold as it attempted to build its touch screen voting system. I`m not here to write about FTP sites or whether voting machines can or can`t be messed with over the Internet. We`re looking at this as an IT project, remember? This isn`t politics (at least not in this particular column) it`s engineering. And one thing engineers of great big IT systems know is that they are never on time, never on budget, and sometimes don`t work at all.

      Software development projects fail all the time, no matter what their size. The Standish Group, an IT-research firm in West Yarmouth, Mass., has been keeping track of this phenomenon since 1994, and the good news is that we are doing much better at completing projects than we used to. The bad news is that in 2000, only 28 percent of software projects could be classed as complete successes (meaning they were executed on time and on budget), while 23 percent failed outright (meaning that they were abandoned). Those numbers are improvements over a 16 percent success rate and a 31 percent failure rate when the first study was done in 1994.

      I can`t imagine too many business owners liking those odds, but the picture does get darker. If 28 percent of software projects were complete successes in 2000, then 72 percent were at least partial failures. And in software, even partial failure generally means getting absolutely nothing for your money.

      According to the Standish Group, more than $275 billion will be spent on software development this year, covering about 250,000 projects. That means that if the recent success and failure percentages apply, $63 billion in development costs will go down the toilet in 2003 alone.

      What does this have to do with voting machines? It says that this whole idea of changing by 2004 the way every American votes was probably doomed from the beginning. Whether political motivations were involved or not, the odds were always against this thing coming in on schedule or on budget.

      Then why do we do it this way? The "it" in this case doesn`t mean just this voting project. Why do we undertake these massive IT projects that almost inevitably fail?

      The answer is simple -- because there is lots of money to be made whether the darned thing works or not, and not much of a penalty if it doesn`t work. Two hundred and seventy-five billion is a lot of money to spend on software development, especially if 72 percent of that money will be either wasted completely or used to develop something that doesn`t work intended.

      Does that begin to sound like the current state of this voting fiasco?

      So we were stupid to expect this thing to work as planned. Except that as far as I can tell, there wasn`t really a plan. Here`s what I think happened. This is, unfortunately, far too common in the IT world. After the last presidential election, there was a government outcry for an electronic voting system. Firms like Diebold who make ATMs, check out systems and kiosk systems said, "Hey, we can make a voting machine out of one of our products." That was probably the total extent of thinking and requirements put together by the government agencies and the vendors.

      In the case of this voting fiasco, there was a wonderful confluence of events. There was a vague product requirement coming from an agency that doesn`t really understand technology (the U.S. Congress), foisting a system on other government agencies that may not have asked for it. There was a relatively small time frame for development and a lot of money. Finally, the government did not allow for even the notion of failure. By 2004, darn it, we`d all have touch screen voting.

      Oh, and there are only three vendors, all of whom have precisely the same motivation (to make as much money as possible) and understanding (that Congress would buy its way out of technical trouble if it had to). This gave the vendors every reason to put their third string people on the project because doing so would mean more profit, not less.

      One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, somehow expecting a different outcome. In this instance, the issue isn`t whether Diebold and the other vendors were insane (they aren`t), but whether the government is.

      Now against this backdrop of failure, I can`t help but make one technical observation that I think has been missed by most of the other people covering this story. One of the key issues in touch screen voting is the presence or absence of a so-called paper trail. There doesn`t seem to be any way in these systems to verify that the numbers coming out are the numbers that went in. There is no print-out from the machine, no receipt given to the voter, no way of auditing the election at all. This is what bugs the conspiracy theorists, that we just have to trust the voting machine developers -- folks whose actions strongly suggest that they haven`t been worthy of our trust.

      So who decided that these voting machines wouldn`t create a paper trail and so couldn`t be audited? Did the U.S. Elections Commission or some other government agency specifically require that the machines NOT be auditable? Or did the vendors come up with that wrinkle all by themselves? The answer to this question is crucial, so crucial that I am eager for one of my readers to enlighten me. If you know the answer for a fact, please get in touch.

      Having the voting machines not be auditable seems to have been a bad move on somebody`s part, whoever that somebody is.

      Now here`s the really interesting part. Forgetting for a moment Diebold`s voting machines, let`s look at the other equipment they make. Diebold makes a lot of ATM machines. They make machines that sell tickets for trains and subways. They make store checkout scanners, including self-service scanners. They make machines that allow access to buildings for people with magnetic cards. They make machines that use magnetic cards for payment in closed systems like university dining rooms. All of these are machines that involve data input that results in a transaction, just like a voting machine. But unlike a voting machine, every one of these other kinds of Diebold machines -- EVERY ONE -- creates a paper trail and can be audited. Would Citibank have it any other way? Would Home Depot? Would the CIA? Of course not. These machines affect the livelihood of their owners. If they can`t be audited they can`t be trusted. If they can`t be trusted they won`t be used.

      Now back to those voting machines. If EVERY OTHER kind of machine you make includes an auditable paper trail, wouldn`t it seem logical to include such a capability in the voting machines, too? Given that what you are doing is adapting existing technology to a new purpose, wouldn`t it be logical to carry over to voting machines this capability that is so important in every other kind of transaction device?

      This confuses me. I`d love to know who said to leave the feature out and why?

      Next week: the answer.

      Reprinted from PBS:
      http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
      pulpit/pulpit20031204.html
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 15:57:38
      Beitrag Nr. 10.133 ()
      Bush policies more problem than solution

      By ROBERT L. BOROSAGE

      The economy is pumping; stocks are up; profits are up. George W. Bush stumps the country saying his tax cuts are working. On cue, the conservative chorus of pundits provide the echo, celebrating his triumph.
      But before the president proclaims another premature "mission accomplished," a closer look at the situation on the ground is in order. It`s not surprising the economy has started to grow. The Federal Reserve has held interest rates near record lows; the federal deficit is at a record high, driven by both soaring spending and sumptuous high-end tax cuts, and the dollar has plummeted more than 40 percent to the Euro, providing some help to U.S. exports. John Maynard Keynes was right: Government action can help lift an economy out of its doldrums.

      But the good news in the corporate boardrooms hasn`t yet reached the kitchen tables where Americans share their worries late at night -- about jobs and wages, health care, educating their kids, affording a decent retirement. Bush`s CEO administration appears out of touch with that reality and his policies are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

      Jobs are still scarce and wages aren`t keeping pace. Worse, workers continue to get laid off from good jobs, and find the new jobs available have lower wages and fewer benefits. Despite running up a record deficit, Bush will end his first term in office with the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression.

      Top-end tax cuts have proved to be -- as economists warned -- the least efficient way to get the economy going. A goodly portion of the money is being invested abroad, creating more jobs in Shanghai and Delhi than in Sandy Springs or DeKalb County.

      Bleak signs everywhere

      Bush`s feckless trade policy, which has simply ignored the jobs being shipped abroad or how China games the system, doesn`t help. And his refusal to repeal the tax breaks that reward companies that move jobs overseas makes things worse. The resulting Bush economy is perfectly reflected in the early reports on holiday shopping: luxury stores are doing well, discount houses OK, but the returns are bleak for stores that cater to middle-income families.

      Health care costs are soaring, with strapped companies pushing more of the costs onto employees. Bush not only has ignored the soaring costs, but also the drug plan he just pushed through Congress, in a shameless payoff to the drug companies, actually prohibits Medicare from negotiating the best price for seniors. It will help fuel rising prices for the rest of us.

      Classrooms are crowded, but teachers are being laid off. Tuitions are soaring, but government loans aren`t keeping up. Crime is still with us, but police forces are being cut. The electricity blackouts symbolize the decline of basic infrastructure that families rely on.

      But Bush insisted on top-end tax cuts to stimulate the economy, rather than putting people to work building schools, sewers, sustaining essential services -- investments that would have created far more good jobs at far less cost than the Bush tax cuts. When he fought against providing help to states and cities facing the worst fiscal crisis in 50 years, he guaranteed the cuts and local tax hikes that fell disproportionately on working families.

      Retirements derailed

      The retirement plans of many Americans were shattered in the stock market crash. That wasn`t Bush`s fault, but his policies don`t help. In the wake of Enron, he pushed a pension bill that would make it easier for companies to provide pensions to the top floor while doing nothing for the shop floor.

      And his tax cuts perversely provided less stimulus in the short term and more debt and deficits in the long term, a decade from now when Social Security and Medicare must take on the costs of the retiring baby boom generation. Bush now plans to push for private accounts in Social Security to mask deep cuts in guaranteed benefits.

      In the short term, the problem isn`t the Bush deficits -- as many Democrats and conservative Republicans suggest. The problem is what he did with the money.

      It`s as if your neighbor, faced with a faulty heater, doubled the mortgage, tapped out the retirement and college funds, and handed over the money to a Park Avenue firm that squandered much of it on investments abroad. The heater went back on, but the house foundation is crumbling, the roof leaks, the electricity doesn`t work, he`s in record debt and the money is gone. You wouldn`t call that a success.

      With the election year upon us, the administration is desperate to celebrate good economic news. But the recovery that is boosting the boardrooms hasn`t yet reached America`s kitchen tables. For working Americans, this is a mission far from accomplished.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Robert L. Borosage is the co-director of the Campaign for America`s Future, which "fights to make this economy work for working people." He is also a contributing editor at The Nation.

      Find this article at:
      http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1203/07econcon.ht…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 17:25:53
      Beitrag Nr. 10.134 ()
      Saturday, December 06, 2003
      War News for December 6, 2003 Draft

      Jede Meldung ein Link:
      http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/



      Bring `em on: US troops under small arms fire in central Mosul.

      Bring `em on: Iraqi policeman killed in Mosul.

      Bring `em on: CENTCOM reports over the past seven days, "there have been an average of 19 engagements daily against coalition military and an average of two attacks per day against Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians." The following incidents, extracted from the CENTCOM briefing, occured over the past 24 hours:

      Bring `em on: US logistics convoy attacked with automatic weapons near Samarra. Two civilian drivers wounded.

      Bring `em on: Roadside bomb in Baghdad wounded one US soldier.

      Bring `em on: Dominican soldiers mortared near Diwaniyah.

      Bring `em on: Coalition foot patrol under fire in the Al-Majar al-Kabir yesterday.

      Iraqi Governing Council proposes forming separate militias into a unified security force.

      Fashion maven and incompetent administrator L. Paul Bremer doesn`t like the idea but has no plan of his own to transfer security to the Iraqis. Check out the picture with this article of that ridiculous little man Bremer strutting across a stage wearing a Gucci suit and combat boots.

      US troops raid 2,400 apartments in Baghdad.

      Bushies intend to establish unilateral war-crimes tribunal in Iraq.

      Then again, we may not need tribunals for Baathists.

      Fuel and power shortages continue to anger Iraqis.

      General Clark continues to spank Lieutenant AWOL: "Clark said, `This election is going to be about this president landing on that aircraft wearing a flight suit,` with an audience member chiming in, `That`s a joke.` He said, `It`s going to be about the president flying to Baghdad in the middle of the night to deliver turkeys to the troops,` and someone else chimed in, `Because he is one.`"

      Sen. Kerry gets a piece of Lieutenant AWOL, too. "`On issue after issue, George Bush has given America a raw deal, and everyone in this room knows it,` he said in the text. `George Bush goes to Baghdad to carry around a fake Thanksgiving turkey while he cuts support for our troops and 40,000 veterans are left on a hospital waiting list.`"

      Bushies want to minimize the casualty count so they deny soldiers Purple Heart medals for wounds received in action. It has become pretty obvious that the Bushies are waging a hard campaign to conceal American casualties from the American people. They refuse to allow media access to Dover and Ramstein, and it`s clear the CENTCOM doesn`t report specific attacks on American troops, wounded soldiers, or even American KIAs unless the action happens in directly front of a reporter.

      Rummy visits oilfields near Kirkuk.

      I hope this report is wrong. "A farmer from the city of Baquba, 60 km north of Baghdad, said US troops had burned large areas of citrus orchards in the city, which were suspected to be guerilla hideouts."

      Damage from Bush`s War and Rummy`s failed defense policy: "Four Army divisions — more than 100,000 soldiers, 40 percent of the active-duty force — will not be fully combat-ready for up to six months next year, leaving the nation short of ready troops in the event of a major conflict in North Korea or elsewhere, a senior Army official said yesterday…Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey…said four to five divisions below the C-1 rating `means literally half the Army is broken and not ready to fight.`" Emphasis added.

      Casualty Reports

      Local story: Georgia soldier wounded in Iraq.

      Local story: Kansas soldier wounded in Iraq.

      Home Front

      Lieutenant AWOL raises another $1 million bucks in Baltimore before stopping at Home Depot, a company that has chipped in over $1.5 million to his campaign in exchange for some sweet taxpayer-funded favors.







      # posted by yankeedoodle : 3:16 AM
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 18:11:19
      Beitrag Nr. 10.135 ()
      Hier bei Fox hat sich nichts zu Gunsten Bush`s geändert. Wenn die Wirtschaft nicht den erwartetet steilen Anstieg
      schaffen sollte, würde es dann von einem ziemlich niedrigen Niveau weiter abwärts gehen.
      Werte für einen Präsidenten von unter 50% sind selten und die Entscheidung fällt bei einigen wenigen Staaten.


      Voters Divided on Bush Future

      Friday, December 05, 2003

      By Dana Blanton



      The country remains half red and half blue this holiday season. Harkening back to a nation divided into "red states" (Republican) and "blue states" (Democratic) during the 2000 election, voters today are split about evenly on what holiday gift they would give President George W. Bush — four more years in the White House or retirement at the ranch in Texas.

      This week’s FOX News poll finds that when asked which present they would like to give Bush, 43 percent of voters say "another four years in the White House" and 47 percent say they would give him retirement to the Crawford ranch. As was the case in the last presidential election, Bush receives stronger support among men than women. Men favor giving Bush another four years by a 48 percent to 44 percent margin, while women prefer to send him back to the ranch by 51 percent to 38 percent.

      Not surprisingly, over 80 percent of Republicans would give their party’s leader four more years and over 80 percent of Democrats would send him home. Independents lean more toward making Bush a one-term president, as 49 percent would give him retirement and only 35 percent say another four years.

      Despite the new Medicare (search) legislation — seen as a major victory for the president — and positive reports on the nation’s economy, the poll finds that on a more traditional reelect question Bush’s numbers still remain below 50 percent. If the election were held today, 43 percent say they would be more likely to vote for Bush and 36 percent for an unnamed Democratic candidate, with 21 percent unsure, which is essentially where the numbers stood in October.

      Many voters seem skeptical that there is a Democratic opponent who can send Bush packing. Less than a third of voters (29 percent) rate the current field of Democratic candidates as "strong," but almost half (48 percent) see the field as "weak," including 34 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of independents.

      Of all the 2004 Democratic contenders, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (search) is identified as the candidate with the best chance of beating Bush (14 percent), followed by retired Gen. Wesley Clark (search) (seven percent), Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt (search) (six percent), Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (search) (six percent) and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (search) (five percent). Five percent of voters think former Vice President Al Gore (search) has the best shot at ousting Bush and three percent think New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (search), even though both say they are not running, and 19 percent say "none" of the Democratic candidates can defeat Bush.

      The national poll of registered voters was conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation (search) on December 3 and 4, one week after President Bush’s Thanksgiving Day trip to Baghdad.

      There is widespread endorsement of the president’s surprise trip to Baghdad, with fully 78 percent of Americans saying they approve. An overwhelming 94 percent of Republicans approve of the trip, as do 64 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of independents. In addition, 80 percent of Americans say they think the trip was the "right thing for him to do" to show support for the troops as opposed to 10 percent who think it was the "wrong thing" to do because it was too dangerous.

      An even higher percentage of the public, 87 percent, think it was appropriate for the Bush administration to ask reporters traveling with the president to stay mum about the trip until after leaving Baghdad due to security concerns.

      Today over half of Americans (55 percent) think the action against Iraq was the right thing for the United States to do, down three percentage points since October and 10 points since July. Republican approval for the war remains strong (82 percent), but support among both Democrats and independents, while never as strong as it is among Republicans, now appears to be waning. In September, 38 percent of Democrats thought going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do and now that number stands at 32 percent. Among independents support dropped seven points in the same time period.

      The president’s overall job approval rating holds steady at 52 percent — about where it has been since late September. While the president’s approval rating may not have moved up this week, the administration may see good news in the fact that his disapproval rating is down and currently stands at 34 percent. In mid-November the president’s disapproval rating hit 41 percent, the highest negative rating he had received of his term.

      "Despite the nearly even division on reelecting Bush, many in the public don`t want to criticize a wartime president," comments Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman (search). "While the trip to Iraq didn`t cause many people to become favorable, it did give critics some pause as they assess it. However, as we`ve seen time and time again over the last few years, as an event that moved the president`s rating fades, the country moves back toward its 50/50 split."

      The voters` assessment of the outlook for the national economy continues to be positive, with over two-thirds of Americans (68 percent) now saying they think economic conditions will be better a year from now — up from 66 percent in April and 49 percent in March. A 57 percent majority thinks their personal financial situation will be better next year as well.

      Are the Bush administration’s 2003 tax cuts helping to improve the economy? The "opinion-is-divided" theme continues, as 42 percent say they think the tax cuts are helping and 45 percent disagree. Republicans think the tax cuts are helping (68 percent to 21 percent), but Democrats are almost three times as likely to say the cuts are not helping to revive the economy (64 percent to 22 percent).

      Polling was conducted by telephone December 3-4, 2003 in the evenings. The sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise noted. LV = likely voters

      1. Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president
      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105000,00.html
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 19:21:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.136 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 22:38:20
      Beitrag Nr. 10.137 ()
      The Codpiece Has Landed!
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


      Washington (IWR News Satire) - President Bush confirmed today that he plans to send a special mission to the moon to exploit its natural resources, expand the search for Saddam Hussein`s missing Weapons of Mass Destruction, and to see if any of those missing factory jobs might be hiding there.
      Here are the President`s remarks:

      THE PRESIDENT: Karl tells me that 2004 is an election year. Boy does time fly when you are having so much fun! It helps that I never read any of those lying newspapers!

      [Mr. Bush yucks it up with the audience.]

      Anyway, Karl says that I need a new Kennedy style gimmick.

      You know, like putting a man on moon again to distract the American people from all of the side effects from what my critics call the `Texas Chainsaw Massacre Administration`.

      You know that was me and my drinking buddies favorite movie too.

      [The audience laughs nervously.]

      Like I was saying, we need what Karl calls a smokescreen to help make people forget about all those things that are bumming folks out.

      You know: unemployment, no real progress on the war on terrorism, outsourcing jobs overseas, those damn Osama tapes, the ballooning cost of healthcare and college intuitions, this dumb Iraq war, and a budget deficit as big as a zit on Godzilla`s ass.

      Get the picture?

      Therefore, I hereby challenge the American people to put a man on the moon again by 2010!

      I mean, who knows what junk we might find up there. We might even find those missing WMD or them three million jobs that I lost!

      Thank you.

      END
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 22:45:40
      Beitrag Nr. 10.138 ()
      Electronic votes touch off doubts

      By SCOTT SHEPARD
      The Atlanta Journal-Constitution


      WASHINGTON -- Election officials and computer scientists are increasingly concerned that touch-screen electronic voting machines like the ones used in Georgia may be inaccurate and even susceptible to sabotage.

      Among some Democrats, there is deep distrust developing about the devices, particularly since a top executive in the voting machine industry is a major fund-raiser for President Bush.

      Industry officials insist that electronic balloting is reliable, accurate and secure and will help avert a repeat of the ballot-counting fiasco that held up results in Florida and sent the 2000 presidential election to the U.S. Supreme Court.

      "Electronic voting is a good thing," said David Bear, spokesman for Ohio-based Diebold Inc., one of four companies that dominate the voting machine industry.

      Diebold boasts a significant testimonial from Georgia`s top election official, Secretary of State Cathy Cox, who declared the state`s conversion to the system "a tremendous success."

      Georgia was the first state to adopt electronic voting in every precinct, rolling out its system in the November 2002 election.

      Cox championed the $54 million touch-screen system after learning the state had had even more uncounted votes during the 2000 election than Florida.

      Electronic plot?

      The Diebold system, whose customers include Maryland, California and Kansas, is at the heart of concerns that for months have fueled dire conspiracy theories of a possible electronic coup d`etat.

      This fall the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper disclosed that Diebold`s chief executive, Walden O`Dell, is one of Bush`s top fund-raisers and, in a letter to potential Bush donors, he had underscored his commitment "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes" to the Republicans.

      O`Dell has since expressed regrets for the remarks, saying that while experienced in business, he is "a real novice" in politics. Even so, he has no intention of stopping his fund-raising efforts as a "Pioneer" and "Ranger," designations used by the Bush campaign for elite fund-raisers who collect a minimum of $200,000 and $100,000, respectively. "I am one, and proud of it," O`Dell said in a statement issued by Diebold`s corporate headquarters.

      Democrats cry foul

      O`Dell easily qualifies as a Bush "Pioneer." In July, for example, he had a fund-raiser at his home with Vice President Dick Cheney that netted $500,000.

      Democrats cry foul. Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina today plans to call on Bush to return the money O`Dell has raised for his campaign.

      "We now have touch-screen voting machines that some people think are just as bad as a butterfly ballot," Edwards says in a speech prepared for delivery to Florida Democrats. "What makes this worse is that one of George W. Bush`s fund-raising Pioneers said he wanted to help Ohio deliver its electoral votes to George Bush."

      Sen. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said, "Republicans have sunk to a stunning new low."

      Traveling the `Net

      The emerging theories of a conspiracy to rig the voting tabulations in 2004 extend well beyond O`Dell`s relationship with Bush and other Republicans. The Internet is awash with Web sites devoted to the notion, the most prominent being www.blackboxvoting.com, with accounts about:

      • Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel`s upset victory in 1996. He ran without disclosing that he had been CEO and chairman of Election Systems & Software, which installed, programmed and operated the state`s voting machines. Hagel has denied any wrongdoing.

      • The unexpectedly easy Republican victories in Georgia`s 2002 election for governor and U.S. Senate, where Diebold had installed its system. Previously favored Democratic incumbents failed to win re-election.

      Yet Bobby Kahn, who was chief of staff to ousted Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes, said in a recent e-mail to the Journal-Constitution that he would "love to believe" in a "computer meltdown or a grand conspiracy" causing Barnes` defeat, but rejects both notions. "The count was accurate," Kahn said of the vote.

      Computer scientists and voting machine experts are less concerned about O`Dell`s political affiliations than about the integrity of the technology being marketed by Diebold and its competitors.

      Tests reveal risks

      Tests of computerized systems in Ohio this week did little to reassure skeptics. Detroit-based Compuware Corp., in a technical analysis of the four major voting machine manufacturers, identified 57 potential security risks in the software and hardware tested.

      The findings prompted Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to delay plans for having a computerized system in place for the 2004 presidential election. "I will not place these voting devices before Ohio`s voters until identified risks are corrected and system security is bolstered," Blackwell said.

      For months, computer experts have been warning that the new voting machines are susceptible to the kinds of foul-ups -- undervotes and misvotes, for example -- that led to the 2000 Florida election debacle.

      Computerized voting systems also may be vulnerable to hackers or scheming programmers bent on stealing an election, some experts warned.

      A hacker could add votes to an individual voting terminal and a programmer could insert a "Trojan horse" program with a hidden code that could change vote totals, then cover its tracks, it has been suggested.

      A group of experts recently formed the National Committee for Voting Integrity to draw public attention to their concerns. Some of the voting tabulation technologies being considered by various states "pose a significant risk to the integrity of the democratic process in the United States," the committee warned.

      -- Staff writer Duane Stanford contributed to this article.

      Find this article at:
      http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1203/06voting.html
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 23:24:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.139 ()


      December 7, 2003
      The Dean Connection
      By SAMANTHA M. SHAPIRO

      Last February, Clay Johnson, 26, took a trip from Atlanta to the Dominican Republic to visit his girlfriend, Merrill, who was studying linguistics at a university there. He carried an engagement ring in his pocket, but when he arrived, he said, Merrill was cold and distant, and he never gave it to her. Before he left, Merrill told him that she didn`t love him anymore.

      He returned to his apartment in Atlanta, where he worked as a freelance technology consultant. His place was also serving as a storage space for Merrill`s possessions, in boxes, and as a temporary home for her two cats. He was allergic to the cats. He stripped to his underwear, lay on the floor in a fetal position and remained there for days, occasionally sipping from an old carton of orange juice. ``I was completely obliterated,`` he says. ``I didn`t know something like that could actually cause physical pain.``

      Johnson`s friends kept calling, trying to think of something that would get him out of the house. Finally they hit on one: Howard Dean.

      Johnson had been talking about Howard Dean for about a year. He had never voted, but after his mother developed cancer and could no longer afford her health insurance, he became interested in politics. When he looked at the various Democrats running for president, he felt drawn to Dean right away. He liked the health care plan that Dean had instituted in Vermont and his forthright style, and later appreciated Dean`s clear opposition to the war in Iraq.

      At his friends` urging, Johnson attended a Dean gathering last spring. Sixty people showed up, more than could fit in the coffee shop that Meetup.com had selected for them. So they gathered in the parking lot instead. Everyone took a turn saying why he or she liked Howard Dean. Someone handed out Dean stickers, and then people broke up into twos and threes to chat. Johnson spent most of the meeting talking with a young Duke graduate named Julie Reeve, who, he says, was ``really smart.`` She was also, he says, ``the most beautiful girl I have ever seen.``

      Johnson didn`t think he had much of a chance with Julie Reeve, but at least he had a reason to get up off the floor. He threw himself into the Dean campaign. He began knocking on doors, reading books on precinct districting and setting up databases. He saw Reeve at campaign events, and even went out with her a couple of times apart from their campaign activities, but he couldn`t tell if she liked him.

      In May, the Dean campaign posted a notice on its Web site saying that it needed a programmer familiar with social-network software to work in the headquarters in Burlington, Vt. Johnson quit his job, put the money from Merrill`s engagement ring toward a Volkswagen Passat and headed out to Burlington.

      Johnson`s story is actually one of the more conventional at the Dean headquarters; he arrived with a paying job that he had secured in advance. Alex Perkins, a 32-year-old policy coordinator for the campaign, quit his job, sold his house in Seattle and showed up at the campaign office offering to work free. Austin Burke, 22, who researches the other candidates, drove from Phoenix -- it took him six days -- and then just wandered around Burlington asking where the Dean office was. Matthew Bethell, 20, a British university student, left London and took the year off to volunteer full time in New Hampshire, even though he can`t vote in American elections.

      Long before Howard Dean was considered a plausible candidate for president, he seemed to emit some sort of secret call that made people, many of them previously apolitical, drop everything and devote themselves to his campaign. Even after the campaign`s 45 official intern positions were filled, people kept showing up -- mostly young people, but also senior citizens in R.V.`s and middle managers from Microsoft.

      At the headquarters of most political campaigns, there`s a familiar organizational structure: a group of junior employees carrying out a plan devised by a bunch of senior advisers. The Dean headquarters feels different: a thin veneer of Official Adults barely hovers above a 24-hour hive of intense, mostly youthful devotion. When the adults leave, usually around 10 p.m., the aisles between cubicles are still cluttered with scooters and dogs; when they return in the morning, balancing just-microwaved cinnamon buns and coffee, they climb over pale legs poking out from beneath their desks and shoo sleeping volunteers off their office couches.

      For each person who decided to arrive unannounced at the Dean office, dozens more stayed home and appointed themselves director of one unofficial Dean organization or another. There are now 900 unofficial Dean groups. Some of the activities undertaken on behalf of Dean qualify as recognizable politics: people hand out fliers at farmer`s markets or attend local Democratic Party meetings. Others take steps of their own invention: they cover their pajamas with stickers that say ``Howard Dean Has a Posse`` and wear them to an art opening, or they organize a squadron to do ``Yoga for Dean.`` They compose original songs in honor of Dean. (About two dozen people have done that; another man wrote a set of 23 limericks.) They marry each other wearing Dean paraphernalia. Overweight supporters create Web pages documenting, in daily dispatches, their efforts to lose 100 pounds in time for Dean`s election. One woman, Kelly Jacobs of Hernando, Miss., took it upon herself to travel around the Memphis area for 15 weeks, standing on a single street corner for a week at a time, to promote Dean. I saw a middle-aged man at a garden party in New Hampshire preface a question to Dean by saying he was associated with Howards for Howard. Dean nodded, as if the man had said he was with the AARP.

      This national network of people communicates through, and takes inspiration from, the Dean Web log, or blog, where official campaign representatives post messages a few times a day and invite comments from the public. The unofficial campaign interacts daily with the campaign in other ways as well. When Jeff Horwitz, a full-time volunteer, needs help compiling the news articles that make up the staff`s daily internal press briefing, he e-mails a request for help to a list of supporters he has never met, asking them to perform Internet news searches at certain times and then e-mail him the results. ``Ten people will volunteer to give me a news summary by 8 a.m.,`` Horwitz explains. ``People in California, which means they have to get up at 4 a.m.`` A number of campaign staffers are in regular contact with Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, 14, who lives in Sitka, Alaska. Growing up on a remote Alaskan island, Kreiss-Tomkins has become especially adept at finding pen pals and online friends, and he now uses that skill on behalf of the Dean campaign, recruiting supporters through the Internet and then sending lists of e-mail addresses to the campaign.

      Joe Trippi, Dean`s campaign manager, says the campaign`s structure is modeled on the Internet, which is organized as a grid, rather than as spokes surrounding a hub. Before joining the campaign, Trippi was on a four-year hiatus from politics, during which he consulted for high-tech companies, and he can be evangelical on the subject of the Internet and its potential to create political change. (A team of Internet theorists -- David Weinberger, Doc Searls, Howard Rheingold -- consults for the campaign.) Trippi likes to say that in the Internet model he has adopted for the campaign, the power lies with the people at ``the edges of the network,`` rather than the center. When people from the unofficial campaign call and ask permission to undertake an activity on behalf of Dean, they are told they don`t need permission.

      The latest holy grail of the tech industry is the idea that people can fuse the virtual communities and digital connections of the Internet with real, human life. Investors are pouring money into Web sites and software programs that claim to perform this function, like Friendster, which lets users visually represent their real friend networks online, and Meetup.com, the site that has helped build the Dean campaign. Meetup.com takes its inspiration from books like ``Bowling Alone,`` by Robert D. Putnam, about the decline of American public life; its founders claim that the regular monthly meetings arranged through its site (gathering any group from Wiccans to dachshund lovers to, more recently, supporters of political candidates) can help heal the disintegration of the American community.

      Techies since the 70`s have waxed utopian about the computer`s potential to change the way we relate to one another and to restructure power dynamics. And Joe Trippi, a veteran of several losing presidential campaigns, has tried to build a grass-roots base before, most successfully for Jerry Brown. Although it remains to be seen how significantly the Dean campaign can affect political participation, it has clearly shifted traditional party power, at least for the moment. Last January, the campaign had $157,000 in the bank and the open disdain of major institutions of its party. In May, the Democratic Leadership Council`s chairman and president described Dean as a member of the ``McGovern-Mondale wing`` of the party and publicly declared that he was detrimental to the Democratic Party. By organizing its national network of Yogis, Howards, Dykes and Disney Employees for Dean, the campaign built an alternative to institutions like the D.L.C. Dean has raised $25 million, mostly through small checks -- the average donation is $77 -- and those checks have placed Dean at the top of the Democratic fund-raising pack.

      Dean`s opponents have begun to mimic the trappings of his campaign. Many of the Democratic candidates now have blogs. Even President Bush has one, though comments from the public -- an essential element of Dean`s blog -- are not allowed. The Dean campaign tracks online contributions with the image of a baseball bat (at one point, the Web site added a new bat for every $1 million raised); shortly after the Dean campaign raised its first million dollars, John Kerry`s campaign took up the Web icon of a hammer. But Dean`s Internet campaign dwarfs those of his rivals. In the third quarter of 2003, Kerry raised in the vicinity of $1 million online; Dean raised more than $7 million. A typical post on the Kerry blog receives, on average, 18 comments, while Dean blog posts generally receive more than a hundred. The Dean Web site is visited with roughly the same frequency as the White House Web site.

      There seems to be something in Dean`s personality that inspires this sort of response. Although his spontaneous, unscripted manner has led some critics to label him as erratic, gaffe-prone and even mean-spirited, the young people at the Dean offices often compare the former governor to a favorite uncle, and speak tenderly about his frayed sweaters and raincoats. They think his jokes are funny. I watched one evening as Walker Waugh, a recent graduate of Williams College, sat wrapped in a blanket in front of a bank of televisions at the Burlington headquarters, laughing hysterically at footage of a 1993 Dean appearance on public access TV that he had been assigned to catalog. ``I`m sending this to all my boys,`` he said. ``They`ll love it.``

      Part of Dean`s appeal is that he behaves in recognizably human ways. He talks with real emotion and seems to respond to events (if sometimes poorly) as they come. In this election season, Dean`s responsive, even angry, voice has had political resonance. Many Dean supporters objected not just to the war in Iraq itself, but also to the Bush administration`s failure to even maintain the appearance of listening to the massive protests and U.N. resolutions. By contrast, responsiveness is the essential sound of the Dean campaign. It is embodied not only in Dean himself, but also in the blog, which creates the impression of a constant dialogue between supporters and campaign staff, and in the organizing on the ground.

      The campaign sees political involvement in the way ``Bowling Alone`` does, as related to participation in civic organizations -- to people getting together socially. People at all levels of the Dean campaign will tell you that its purpose is not just to elect Howard Dean president. Just as significant, they say, the point is to give people something to believe in, and to connect those people to one another. The point is to get them out of their houses and bring them together at barbecues, rallies and voting booths.

      Dean supporters do not drive 200 miles through 10 inches of snow -- as John Crabtree, 39, and Craig Fleming, 41, did to attend the November Dean meet-up in Fargo, N.D. -- to see a political candidate or a representative of his staff. They drive that far to see each other.

      I attended one meeting of a handful of Dean supporters in the basement of the public library in Hooksett, N.H. It felt as much like a support group as a political rally. As they did at Clay Johnson`s meet-up in Atlanta, everyone went around the circle describing what drew them to Dean, usually in very personal language. Bob and Eileen Ehlers haltingly explained the problems their children, in their 20`s, have with health insurance, while Tony Evans nodded sympathetically. No one was asked to volunteer at a phone bank, although people were asked to bring their friends into the campaign.

      After the meeting ended, everyone lingered in the library to talk. Greg DeMarco, a computer salesman, told me, ``My wife and I have met more people in Hooksett through the campaign than we have living here.``

      Eileen Ehlers agreed: ``I don`t know what it is -- maybe that the town has no sidewalks and no physical center, just strips, but people just don`t talk to each other like we do here. People come to Hooksett to sleep, and go to work somewhere else. But the brilliance of the campaign is that it is leaving behind a community.``

      The official representative of the Dean campaign that night in Hooksett was Lauren Popper, a 24-year-old actress who temporarily left her boyfriend and career in New York City to work as an organizer for the Dean campaign in Manchester, N.H. She was motivated to volunteer for a weekend in part because she admired Dean`s policy of having every new mother in Vermont visited by a state social worker, but she stayed for other reasons. Popper broke into tears several times while trying to explain what they were.

      ``The thought that he`ll be president is a side effect,`` she said. ``This campaign is about allowing people to come together and tell their life stories.``

      Howard Dean`s campaign headquarters in Vermont are housed in the new breed of suburban structure typical of the landscape Eileen Ehlers described. The small, newly minted office building is poised where the brick-lined streets, bike shops and diners of Burlington end and the highway strip begins. Although the office is near Lake Champlain and leafy hills lurching toward winter, it could be anywhere.

      The software that is supposed to bridge the gaps in the contemporary landscape is maintained here by three often-barefoot boys. They frequently work through the night, as piped-in soft rock fills the empty lobby. When you ask them how long they`ve been working, they respond in increments like ``40 hours`` or ``three days, with naps.`` During these spans of time spent in front of the computer, they may at any given point be coding software, corresponding with Internet theorists and venture capitalists or just firing off instant messages to one another that say, ``Shut up.``

      When Clay Johnson drove to Burlington, it was to work in this cubicle. He now happily perches, for longer hours and for less money than he made in Atlanta, in front of two enormous monitors whose background image is a photo of Howard Dean opening his arms wide to a crowd.

      Johnson works with Zack Rosen, 20, who organized a group of programmers to invent software to help the Dean campaign while on his summer vacation from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. After it was featured in Wired magazine, the Dean people recruited him to come to Burlington and work on it full time. The third man in the cubicle is Gray Brooks, 21, who has deferred his sophomore year at a small Southern Christian college to work for Dean.

      The cubicle where Johnson, Rosen and Brooks work looks a lot like a dot-com start-up from the mid-90`s: preternaturally pale-skinned young men, crazy hours and slightly messianic rhetoric. The men take turns sleeping in an easy chair with torn upholstery and appear to subsist almost entirely on donated food. A supporter sends over a peck of apples and cider doughnuts, and Brooks soon has seven apple cores piled by his desk; when Joe Trippi returns from dinner with a journalist, takeout containers of his half-eaten soup are deposited on Brooks`s desk. Brooks augments this diet with pasta that he says he doesn`t have time to cook. (``Try some,`` he says, holding out a piece of raw ziti. ``If it had salt on it, you`d think it was a potato chip.``)

      Brooks, Johnson and Rosen are overseen, loosely, by Zephyr Teachout, 32, the campaign`s director of Internet organizing. Teachout is a slight, freckled lawyer; she darts around the office in a pair of silver shoes with the balletic, boyish energy of Peter Pan. (``Have you seen how fast her hands move?`` Rosen asks. ``She`ll click a mouse three times instead of once. I could watch her operate all day.``) Because she runs Dean`s Web effort, Teachout finds herself keeping company mostly with the 21-and-under set. She lives with Rachel, 18, an intern. She says that Tim Singer, 17, a volunteer who is still in high school, was ``one of my best friends this summer`` and that Michael Whitney, 19, one of the founders of Students for Dean, now known as Generation Dean, is ``like a little soul mate.`` (``We even have the same haircut,`` she says, accurately, shaking her short shaggy hair out over her face.)

      Teachout, sitting at the very edge of her seat, tells me that ``the revolution,`` as she calls it, has three phases; the first is Howard Dean himself, the second is Meetup.com and the third is the software that Rosen, Johnson and Brooks work with: Get Local, DeanLink, DeanSpace. ``DeanSpace,`` Teachout says, ``is the revolution.``


      Brooks oversees the Get Local tool. He drove from Alabama to Burlington at the beginning of last summer, after hearing Dean on the radio just once. He researched Dean`s policies, and he liked them a lot. ``But the strongest thing was that I could tell he is a good man,`` Brooks says gravely. ``And if a good man were president, it would change everything in ways we can`t even imagine.``

      Since he was 6, Brooks has been either a Cub Scout, a Boy Scout or an Eagle Scout -- he emphasizes that they are distinct institutions -- and he has the demeanor of a handsome, sturdy golden retriever puppy. When he rides his bicycle through Burlington`s silent streets on his way home, he always notes the hushed face of the church he passes. Brooks doesn`t have time to go to church right now, he says, and he doesn`t expect to until Dean is in the White House. He misses church, and he misses his friends in Alabama, and he misses the paying summer job he gave up at Glacier National Park in Montana and the way the night sky looks there. But he knows he is doing the most important thing he could be doing. ``Even when I am being lazy, it is important,`` he tells me, ``because I am recharging my strength to work more for Howard Dean.``

      Get Local is a program that lets supporters organize local events independent of the campaign. The software allows supporters to contact one another and plan gatherings, as well as download fliers they can customize with phrases like ``Dean, this spud`s for you.`` Brooks monitors the efforts, making sure no one inserts bad words on campaign signs or organizes for nefarious purposes. He also composes missives to be fired off to Dean supporters` cellphones.

      Teachout recruited Johnson to create DeanLink, a version of Friendster for the Dean campaign. On Friendster, users are able to see friends of friends up to four degrees of separation and read the comments their friends have written about them. DeanLink invites supporters to link to one another in the manner of Friendster -- ``Introduce yourself! Make a new friend`` -- and also to invite friends from outside the campaign to join. DeanLink lets supporters know one another as more than an e-mail address or a name on a mailing list; they can check out one another`s photographs and interests online. They can also post flattering comments about other supporters, a move cribbed from Friendster`s ``testimonials.`` (Julie Reeve, Johnson`s crush from Atlanta, for instance, writes on Johnson`s DeanLink page that he is ``fun to work with.``) Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins has about 500 DeanLink pals.

      Zack Rosen was a creator of DeanSpace, ``the revolution itself.`` He started the project, originally called Hack for Dean, after reading about Dean on the campaign Web site for 20 minutes. ``I just knew this is the guy,`` Rosen says. He recruited an unpaid team of nearly a hundred programmers, including his friends Neil and Ping, to write software for the campaign that would allow the many disparate, unofficial Dean Web sites to communicate directly with one another and also with the campaign. Typically, to reproduce information from one Web site to another, a user has to cut the information by hand and paste it into each Web site, a laborious process. The software that Zack`s group built allows any Dean Web site to reprint another`s stories, images and campaign feed automatically, as if they have a collective consciousness. It also will provide a ``dashboard`` for the people in Burlington, where the campaign can track patterns on its unofficial sites and observe which content is most popular.

      The effect that Teachout says she hopes the software will create sounds like the experience of being in a tight-knit community: seeing people you know, responding to them, being acknowledged. Teachout speaks about these ideas as if she is reinventing the concept. She says that Meetup.com, is emerging as the ``ritual`` element of the new Dean community. ``It`s like church, the central place where people go to get inspired.``

      Teachout likes to ``thesaurusize`` words on the computer. Right now, she tells me, she is hard at work looking for a word to replace ``citizen.`` ``It would be a word to describe someone for whom politics is a part of their personal life and social life,`` she says. ``I think I am going to ask the bloggers for suggestions.``


      It`s not hard to imagine that if the year were 1999, Rosen, an ambitious college kid with an exciting new software idea, could be easily recast in the role of child tycoon. But Rosen isn`t mourning being born a few years too late. It is not clear to him who owns the programs he invented -- the Democratic National Committee? Howard Dean? -- but he doesn`t really care.

      Rosen says the true purpose of the Internet is to allow people to connect, and he isn`t surprised there wasn`t money to be made on that premise. Through his long fluorescent nights, Rosen takes breaks from coding to gaze happily at the personal e-mail messages Dean supporters compose and send using Dean software. ``Look,`` he says wistfully, the light of the computer reflecting off of his glasses. ``This is Nelson. He spent real time on this letter. Look how long it is.``

      Rosen is one of the more diehard programmers at the Dean office. He can easily discourse for half an hour about ``open-source political campaigns`` or the possibility of using cellphones to overthrow dictatorships or ``recursive hard core CS225 data structures.`` But he surprises me by saying he never would have come up with the Dean software, or left school, if his first serious girlfriend (like Johnson`s crush also named, coincidentally, Julie) hadn`t broken up with him last spring.

      ``The worst thing is we aren`t even friends,`` he says glumly. ``I invited her to be my friend`` -- he gestures to his computer monitor -- ``I mean on Friendster. No word yet.``

      Behind Rosen, Johnson is peeking at pictures of his own Julie, Julie Reeve, posted on the Dean Web site. ``She`s the `A,` `` he says giddily, looking at a group of Dean supporters spelling out D-E-A-N in front of CNN headquarters.

      In September, Johnson returned to Atlanta for a Generation Dean rally. ``I cried when I got there and saw 1,000 people,`` he says, a huge leap from the 60 who came to the April meet-up. ``The rally really showed people how much they had underestimated Dean.`` It was a big day all around; scheduled speakers cancelled at the last minute, and Johnson was asked to improvise onstage for nearly an hour about Governor Dean.

      Shortly after Johnson`s speech, he said that Merrill, his ex-girlfriend, approached him. ``I told her, `Merrill, I am not in love with you anymore,` and turned and walked away,`` he says. Later that night, he kissed Julie Reeve for the first time.

      Brooks has a woman up on his screen, too. His desktop image, always lurking behind whatever project he`s working on, is a picture from a newspaper of a young woman alone on a train. She reminds him of a girl he knows named Julia. ``We wrote letters all summer,`` he says. ``It kept me going, to get real mail, you know?``

      Brooks`s hard drive crashed this summer, taking with it his digital pictures of Julia, so he downloaded the photo of the woman on the train. Above his desk, littered with the shells of hundreds of sunflower seeds (they came in plastic bats, donated by a supporter), Brooks has taped a quote from Robert Louis Stevenson, which he recently read into Julia`s voice mail: ``So long as we love we serve; so long as we are loved by others, I would almost say that we are indispensable; and no man is useless while he has a friend.``

      Rosen, Johnson and Brooks work with headphones on. When they pluck them off or accidentally unplug them, ballads bleed into the quiet office. ``When the human touch is what I need, what I need is you,`` a computer wails one night at 4 a.m. ``Sometimes, when I look deep in your eyes, I swear I can see your soul,`` another computer chimes in. Watching them work from their battered easy chair, I find it impossible to tell if they are gazing at the filmy, pixilated image of a Julie or the face of a new Dean supporter or a line of code; whether the peer-to-peer communication they are struggling with is related to the 2004 election and the fragmentation of American public life, or is something more private.


      In late October, Teachout decided to do an odd thing for a director of Internet organizing; she left the office to tour around the country for six weeks (accompanied by 21-year-old Ryan Davis) in an Airstream bus. Her dream was to meet the people whom she has been talking to every day on the telephone and over the Internet.

      Teachout says she has been wanting to do something like this since March. ``When I was falling in love with our grass roots,`` she says, ``I thought, If I get fired, I am going to go on the road and meet all of them. Once the idea occurs to you, how can you resist?`` Teachout says she would pore over pictures that people posted on the Web from Dean meet-ups, just ``to get a sense of the characters involved.``

      I ask her if the people she hopes to meet on her trip are her friends.

      `` `Friend` is an odd word,`` she says slowly. ``I mean, these are the people who populate my imagination.`` She mentions one blogger, a frequent poster from San Francisco. ``Sally in SF,`` Teachout says, ``is as much a part of my life as my sister.``

      She struggles for a better word than ``friend`` to describe the relationship -- she still hasn`t found a replacement for ``citizen`` either -- and settles on ``correspondent.`` ``What`s happening is an unusual and unprecedented correspondence between the campaign and us,`` she says. It takes me a moment before I realize that when she says ``the campaign,`` she doesn`t mean the people running the headquarters in Burlington. She means the people she`s going to visit in her Airstream.




      Samantha M. Shapiro last wrote for the magazine about settlers in Israel.




      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.12.03 23:39:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.140 ()
      The Proclamation of Baghdad

      The following proclamation was issued to the inhabitants of Baghdad on March 19, 1917, by Lieut. General Sir Stanley Maude, shortly after the occupation of the city by British forces.

      To the People of Baghdad Vilayet:

      In the name of my King, and in the name of the peoples over whom he rules, I address you as follow:-

      Our military operations have as their object the defeat of the enemy, and the driving of him from these territories. In order to complete this task, I am charged with absolute and supreme control of all regions in which British troops operate; but our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Since the days of Halaka your city and your lands have been subject to the tyranny of strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunk in desolation, and your forefathers and yourselves have groaned in bondage. Your sons have been carried off to wars not of your seeking, your wealth has been stripped from you by unjust men and squandered in distant places.

      Since the days of Midhat, the Turks have talked of reforms, yet do not the ruins and wastes of today testify the vanity of those promises?

      It is the wish not only of my King and his peoples, but it is also the wish of the great nations with whom he is in alliance, that you should prosper even as in the past, when your lands were fertile, when your ancestors gave to the world literature, science, and art, and when Baghdad city was one of the wonders of the world.

      Between your people and the dominions of my King there has been a close bond of interest. For 200 years have the merchants of Baghdad and Great Britain traded together in mutual profit and friendship. On the other hand, the Germans and the Turks, who have despoiled you and yours, have for 20 years made Baghdad a centre of power from which to assail the power of the British and the Allies of the British in Persia and Arabia. Therefore the British Government cannot remain indifferent as to what takes place in your country now or in the future, for in duty to the interests of the British people and their Allies, the British Government cannot risk that being done in Baghdad again which has been done by the Turks and Germans during the war.

      But you people of Baghdad, whose commercial prosperity and whose safety from oppression and invasion must ever be a matter of the closest concern to the British Government, are not to understand that it is the wish of the British Government to impose upon you alien institutions. It is the hope of the British Government that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realised and that once again the people of Baghdad shall flourish, enjoying their wealth and substance under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws and their racial ideals. In Hedjaz the Arabs have expelled the Turks and Germans who oppressed them and proclaimed the Sherif Hussein as their King, and his Lordship rules in independence and freedom, and is the ally of the nations who are fighting against the power of Turkey and Germany; so indeed are the noble Arabs, the Lords of Koweyt, Nejd, and Asir.

      Many noble Arabs have perished in the cause of Arab freedom, at the hands of those alien rulers, the Turks, who oppressed them. It is the determination of the Government of Great Britain and the great Powers allied to Great Britain that these noble Arabs shall not have suffered in vain. It is the hope and desire of the British people and the nations in alliance with them that the Arab race may rise once more to greatness and renown among the peoples of the earth, and that it shall bind itself together to this end in unity and concord.

      O people of Baghdad remember that for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have ever endeavoured to set on Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies, for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity and misgovernment. Therefore I am commanded to invite you, through your nobles and elders and representatives, to participate in the management of your civil affairs in collaboration with the political representatives of Great Britain who accompany the British Army, so that you may be united with your kinsmen in North, East, South, and West in realising the aspirations of your race.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 00:04:53
      Beitrag Nr. 10.141 ()
      Manufacturing Anti-Semites
      <http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue…

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Uri Avnery


      The first Israeli victim of Saddam Hussein is a Zionist myth on which we were brought up. The myth tells us that Israel is a haven for all the Jews in the world. In all the other countries, we are told, Jews live in perpetual fear that a cruel persecutor will arise, as happened in Germany. Israel is the safe haven, to which Jews can escape in times of danger. Indeed, this was the purpose of Israel`s founding fathers when they established the state.

      Now Saddam comes along and proves the opposite. All over the world, Jews live in safety; they are threatened by annihilation in only one place on the planet: Israel. Here national parks are being prepared for use as mass graves, here (pathetic) measures against biological and chemical weapons are being prepared. Many people are already planning to escape to the communities in the Diaspora. End of a myth.

      Another Zionist myth died even before that: The Diaspora, so we learned in our youth, creates anti-Semitism. Everywhere the Jews are a minority, and a minority inevitably attracts the hatred of the majority. Only when the Jews gather in the land of their forefathers and constitute the majority there, we learned, will anti-Semitism disappear throughout the world. Thus spoke Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism.

      Nowadays this myth, too, is giving up its blessed soul. Whatever good the existence of the State of Israel may or may not have done, the current government of Israel is quickly undoing. The Sharon government is a giant laboratory for the growing of the anti-Semitism virus. It exports it to the whole world. Anti-Semitic organizations, which for many years vegetated on the margins of society, rejected and despised, are suddenly growing and flowering. Anti-Semitism, which had hidden itself in shame since World War II, is now riding on a great wave of opposition to Sharon`s policy of oppression.

      Sharon`s propaganda agents are pouring oil on the flames by accusing all critics of his policy of being anti-Semites. Many good people, who feel no hatred at all towards the Jews but who detest the persecution of Palestinians, are now called anti-Semites. Thus the sting is taken out of this word, giving it something approaching respectability.

      The practical upshot: not only is the State of Israel not protecting Jews from anti-Semitism, but—on the contrary—its government is manufacturing and exporting the anti-Semitism that threatens Jews around the world.

      For many years, Israel enjoyed the sympathy of most people. It was seen as the state of Holocaust survivors, a small and courageous country defending itself against the repeated assaults of murderous Arabs. Slowly, this image has been replaced by another: a cruel, brutal, and colonizing state, oppressing a small and helpless people. The persecuted has become the persecutor; David has turned into Goliath.

      We Israelis, living in a bubble of self-delusion, find it hard to imagine how the world sees us. In many countries, television and newspapers publish daily pictures of Palestinian children throwing stones at monstrous tanks, soldiers harassing women at checkpoints, despairing old men sitting on the ruins of their demolished homes, soldiers taking aim and shooting children. These soldiers do not look like human beings in uniform—the world does not see "the neighbor`s son" most Israelis see. These soldiers look like robots without faces, armed to the teeth, heads hidden by helmets, bullet-proof vests changing their proportions. People who have seen these photos dozens and hundreds of times start to see the whole State of Israel in this image.

      For Jews, this creates a dangerous, vicious circle. Sharon`s actions create repulsion and opposition throughout the world. These actions reinforce anti-Semitism. Faced with this danger, Jewish organizations are pushed into defending Israel and giving it unqualified support. This support enables the anti-Semites to attack not only the government of Israel, or the State of Israel as a whole, but local Jews, too. And so on.

      Anti-Semites of all stripes and hues are, of course, repulsive. They will vilify Jews whatever we do. Anti-Semitism, like other forms of racism, is never justified. But that is not the point. The point is that the actions of the Sharon government, and the unqualified support given to this government by the Jewish establishment, has enabled these hard-core anti-Semites to win over well-meaning people who are repelled by Sharon`s actions.

      The Israeli government pretends to speak for all Jews around the world, yet no attempt has been made by mainstream Jewish organizations to reject this claim. This may turn out to be a terrible mistake.

      In Europe, Jews already feel the pressure to reject Sharon. But in the United States, Jews still feel supremely self-confident. In Europe, Jews have learned over the centuries that it is not wise to be too conspicuous and to display their wealth and influence. But in America, the very opposite is happening: the Jewish establishment is practically straining to prove that it controls the country.

      Every few years, the Jewish lobby "eliminates" an American politician who does not support the Israeli government unconditionally. This is not done secretly, behind the scenes, but as a public "execution." Just now the Jewish establishment rallied against the black congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a young, active, intelligent, and very sympathetic woman. She had dared to criticize the Sharon government, to support the Palestinian cause, and (worst of all from the Jewish establishment`s standpoint) she had gained the support of Israeli and Jewish peace groups. The Jewish establishment found a counter-candidate, a practically unknown black woman, injected huge sums into the campaign, and defeated Cynthia.

      All this happened in the open, with fanfare, to make a public example of McKinney—so that every senator and congressperson would know that criticizing Sharon is tantamount to political suicide. Not content with this flexing of power, the pro-Israel lobby—which consists of Jews and extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists—is now pushing the Bush administration to start a war in Iraq. This, too, openly and in full view of the American public. Dozens of articles in the important newspapers point out the Jewish pro-war influence as a plain political fact.

      Of course, Jews have a right, just like every other citizen in the United States, to raise their voice in the political arena. But, as the ancients remind us, "pride comes before the fall." The shameless flaunting of Jewish power, the buying of representatives and senators, the immense pressure put on the media, is counterproductive in the long run. It is the ghetto mentality turned upside down; instead of timidity, arrogance.

      What will happen if the war the pro-Israel lobby is advocating ends in failure? If it has unexpected negative results and many young Americans die? If the American public turns against it, as happened during the Vietnam War?

      What will happen when Sharon`s policies bring about revolution in the Arab world, as they will if he is allowed to continue on his current path? As long as the Jewish establishment can convince the American public that the interests of Israel and the United States are identical (an idiotic notion) this will not arouse anger, but when the day comes—and it will come—when the two countrys` interests are seen as diverging, what will be the reaction then?

      One can easily imagine a whispering campaign starting: "The Jews have pushed us into this," "The Jews support Israel more than they support America," and, finally, "The Jews control our country."

      Of course, the special political culture of the United States encourages the rise of special interest groups—but that was also true in Spain of the Golden Age and in the Weimar Republic in Germany. History does not have to repeat itself, but neither should one disregard its lessons. Just because Jews can constitute a special interest group does not mean that creating a disproportionate influence over Congress and the White House is the best strategy for enhancing the future of the Jewish people.

      There are people in Israel who secretly wish for the victory of anti-Semitism everywhere. That would confirm another Zionist myth on which we were brought up: that Jews will not be able to live anywhere but in Israel, because anti-Semitism is bound to triumph everywhere. But the United States is not France or Argentina; it plays a critical role in the Middle East. Israel`s national security, as established by all Israeli governments since Ben-Gurion, is based on total support from the United States—military, political, and economic.

      If I were asked for advice, I would counsel Jewish communities throughout the world as follows: break out of the vicious circle. Disarm anti-Semites by breaking the habit of automatically identifying with everything the Israeli government does. Let your conscience speak out. Return to the traditional Jewish values of "That which is altogether just shalt thou follow!" (Deut. 16:20) and "Seek peace and pursue it!" (Psal. 4: 14). Identify yourselves with the Other Israel, which is struggling to uphold these values at home.

      All over the world, new Jewish groups that follow this way are multiplying. They break yet another myth, that the duty of Jews everywhere is to subordinate themselves to the edicts of the current Israeli government. They know that the true duty of Jews worldwide is to cling fast to Jewish values.




      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Uri Avnery is founder of Gush Shalom <http://www.gush-shalom.org>, an Israeli non-partisan grassroots peace movement composed of Jews and Arabs.

      - - - - -
      © 2002-2003 Tikkun Magazine. This article may be found on the web at:
      http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue…
      This article may be reproduced for purposes of personal scholarship only. For other uses, please contact Tikkun at:
      2342 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 1200, Berkeley, CA 94704
      Phone: (510) 644-1200 | Fax: (510) 644-1255 | Email: magazine@tikkun.org

      http://www.eccmei.net/~eccmei/j/host/Privilege.html
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 00:09:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.142 ()
      AP: Scientists to Excavate Iraqi Graves

      Saturday December 6, 2003 10:31 PM


      By NIKO PRICE

      Associated Press Writer

      MAHAWEEL, Iraq (AP) - The killers kept bankers` hours. They showed up for work at the barley field at 9 a.m., trailed by backhoes and three buses filled with blindfolded men, women and children as young as 1.

      Every day, witnesses say, the routine was the same: The backhoes dug a trench. Fifty people were led to the edge of the hole and shot, one by one, in the head. The backhoes covered them with dirt, then dug another hole for the next group.

      At 5 p.m., the killers - officials of Saddam Hussein`s Baath Party - went home to rest up for another day of slaughter.

      In this wind-swept field in the central town of Mahaweel, witnesses say, this went on without a break for 35 days in March and April of 1991, during a crackdown on a Shiite Muslim uprising that followed the first Gulf War.

      ``I watched this with my own eyes,`` said Sayed Abbas Muhsen, 35, whose family farm was appropriated by Saddam`s government for use as a killing field. ``But we couldn`t tell anyone. We didn`t dare.``

      The mass grave at Mahaweel, with more than 3,100 sets of remains, is the largest of some 270 such sites across Iraq. They hold upward of 300,000 bodies; some Iraqi political parties estimate there are more than 1 million.

      ``It`s as easy to find mass graves in Iraq as it once was to find oil,`` said Adnan Jabbar al-Saadi, a lawyer with Iraq`s new Human Rights Ministry.

      In the days following Saddam`s fall on April 9, family members rushed to grave sites, digging for ID cards and clothing that confirmed their worst fears: The bones in the ground belonged to a son, a wife, a grandfather.

      The U.S.-led occupation authority desperately tried to halt the digging, telling people that if they waited, forensic teams would unearth the remains and use the evidence to punish those responsible.

      Now, an Associated Press investigation has discovered, forensic teams will begin digging in January to preserve the first physical evidence at four grave sites, their desert locations kept secret to prevent relatives from disturbing them first.

      ---

      In a tiny back room of the deposed Iraqi president`s sprawling brick-and-marble Republican Palace in Baghdad, American and British experts are using the latest technology to reach out to the dead.

      They work from a growing database of 270 suspected grave sites, matching witness accounts with geological evidence, preparing for field trips by four-wheel-drive vehicle and helicopter to confirm their high-tech data with the most low-tech of methods: a shovel.

      ``This is not a case of `X marks the spot,``` said archaeologist Barrie Simpson. ``It`s not like driving down Route 66 with signposts that say, `Stop here.```

      Gypsum is one key tool. The Iraqi desert has a hard crust a foot below the surface, which is broken when a hole is dug. Minerals then mix to form gypsum, a kind of salt whose glistening white crystals are visible decades later from a satellite or from the ground.

      Imagery in six spectral bands comes from a commercial satellite in orbit since 1983, which can take images of any spot on Earth every 16 days. The classified computers - which the experts switch off before a reporter enters the room - hold two decades of imagery.

      If witnesses report a mass grave was dug in a certain desert location, say, in March 1991, Burch can analyze data from images taken in February 1991 and June 1991, and determine whether a pit was dug in that area during that time period.

      ``We don`t care what it looks like,`` said geoscientist Bruce Gerrick. ``When our pixels come back and say it`s gypsum, that`s it.``

      After seven months of work, the team has confirmed 41 mass graves across the length and breadth of Iraq - a country the size of France - some near major cities, and others miles from the nearest road.

      They have a long way to go.

      ---

      Excavating a grave site under international standards is painstaking work. To pull 100 sets of remains from the ground, it usually takes six to eight weeks.

      Nobody expects scientists to dig up and identify 300,000 sets of remains. So as the scientists analyze the desert, experts are trying to identify which graves could help prosecutors build a case against those responsible for their creation.

      ``We`re trying to make sure that there is at least one grave, and hopefully two or three, for each major period of atrocity,`` said Sandra Hodgkinson, director of the occupation authority`s human rights office. That would mean eight to 24 mass graves selected for full exhumation.

      Of the 41 mass grave sites confirmed by the coalition team, only four meet the criteria for full exhumation so far, several members of the scientific team told AP. All are in the remote desert, none closer than 10 miles from the nearest road.

      Forensic teams were supposed to have been in place months ago, but several canceled or delayed their trips out of fear for their safety. Hodgkinson said several are ready to begin work in late January.

      The locations of the first four graves selected remain classified. Experts fear that if people know where they are, family members - or even the killers - might try to dig them up.

      Meanwhile, Iraqis will unearth graves with an eye toward identification. Entifadh Qanbar, spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress, a major political party, said that will help Iraqis move on from three decades of brutal dictatorship - at least as important as seeing justice served.

      ``Those people who lost family members need to know where their sons and fathers are, and to rebury them with dignity,`` he said. ``That will bring a lot of peace and comfort to the victims` families and start a process of reconciliation.``

      ---

      Iraq`s U.S.-appointed rulers have drafted a plan to set up a special tribunal for crimes against humanity.

      According to four people who have seen the draft - expected to be approved as soon as Sunday - it calls for Iraqi judges to hear cases from Iraqi prosecutors. International experts will participate as advisers.

      Some human rights groups are uncomfortable with the plan, fearful that Iraqis won`t have the expertise, or that they will sacrifice justice in their thirst for revenge. Some also say the U.S.-led government forced the plan on Iraqis.

      But many Iraqis like the idea. They see an Iraqi-led process - no matter how it comes about - as more satisfying.

      ``I think it`s very important for people to see the criminals who killed their families in court,`` said al-Saadi at the Human Rights Ministry.

      U.S. authorities are pushing for a small number of high-profile trials - maybe 100 or so, including Saddam and other key leaders. Many Iraqis want to try thousands with links to the former regime.

      ``I think those highly responsible should face the courts,`` said al-Husseini, the doctor. ``For the people who followed their orders, we need forgiveness in Iraq.``

      ---

      Villagers dug furiously in Mahaweel in April, carting away more than 2,200 sets of remains. For those they couldn`t identify, they dug individual, unmarked graves, and piled the belongings found with them atop the mounds.

      In Mahaweel today, 900 mounds sit topped with shreds of clothing. On one is a pair of child-sized high-tops. On another, a blood-spattered green jacket. A wallet. A string of black prayer beads.

      ``It`s over,`` said Atlas Hamid Ode, whose brother-in-law was buried there. ``People don`t go there anymore. They have lost all hope of finding their sons. These graves, without names, will remain as shrines.``

      If families are losing hope, the start of formal exhumations next month is sure to churn up old feelings. It`s a process complex beyond description - a fragile mix of politics, justice and revenge in a delicate country wary of all three.

      And relatives hope that in the midst of it all, in an occupied land where the very notion of tomorrow is uncertain, someone, somehow, will help them find peace.

      ---

      Niko Price is correspondent-at-large for The Associated Press.



      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 00:19:29
      Beitrag Nr. 10.143 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 00:41:20
      Beitrag Nr. 10.144 ()
      Die Befreier sind da!

      December 7, 2003
      Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns
      By DEXTER FILKINS

      ABU HISHMA, Iraq, Dec. 6 — As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire.

      In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.

      The Americans embarked on their get-tough strategy in early November, goaded by what proved to be the deadliest month yet for American forces in Iraq, with 81 soldiers killed by hostile fire. The response they chose is beginning to echo the Israeli counterinsurgency campaign in the occupied territories.

      So far, the new approach appears to be succeeding in diminishing the threat to American soldiers. But it appears to be coming at the cost of alienating many of the people the Americans are trying to win over. Abu Hishma is quiet now, but it is angry, too.

      In Abu Hishma, encased in a razor-wire fence after repeated attacks on American troops, Iraqi civilians line up to go in and out, filing through an American-guarded checkpoint, each carrying an identification card printed in English only.

      "If you have one of these cards, you can come and go," coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "If you don`t have one of these cards, you can`t."

      The Iraqis nodded and edged their cars through the line. Over to one side, an Iraqi man named Tariq muttered in anger.

      "I see no difference between us and the Palestinians," he said. "We didn`t expect anything like this after Saddam fell."

      The practice of destroying buildings where Iraqi insurgents are suspected of planning or mounting attacks has been used for decades by Israeli soldiers in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli Army has also imprisoned the relatives of suspected terrorists, in the hopes of pressing the suspects to surrender.

      The Israeli military has also cordoned off villages and towns thought to be hotbeds of guerrilla activity, in an effort to control the flow of people moving in and out.

      American officials say they are not purposefully mimicking Israeli tactics, but they acknowledge that they have studied closely the Israeli experience in urban fighting. Ahead of the war, Israeli defense experts briefed American commanders on their experience in guerrilla and urban warfare. The Americans say there are no Israeli military advisers helping the Americans in Iraq.

      Writing in the July issue of Army magazine, an American brigadier general said American officers had recently traveled to Israel to hear about lessons learned from recent fighting there.

      "Experience continues to teach us many lessons, and we continue to evaluate and address those lessons, embedding and incorporating them appropriately into our concepts, doctrine and training," Brig. Gen. Michael A. Vane wrote. "For example, we recently traveled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their counterterrorist operations in urban areas." General Vane is deputy chief of staff for doctrine concepts and strategy, at the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command.

      American officers here say their new hard-nosed approach reflects a more realistic appreciation of the military and political realities faced by soldiers in the so-called Sunni triangle, the area north and west of Baghdad that is generating the most violence against the Americans.

      Underlying the new strategy, the Americans say, is the conviction that only a tougher approach will quell the insurgency and that the new strategy must punish not only the guerrillas but also make clear to ordinary Iraqis the cost of not cooperating.

      "You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."

      Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top military commander in Iraq, announced the get-tough strategy in early November. After the announcement, some American officers warned that the scenes that would follow would not be pretty.

      Speaking today in Baghdad, General Sanchez said attacks on allied forces or gunfights with adversaries across Iraq had dropped to under 20 a day from 40 a day two weeks ago.

      "We`ve considerably pushed back the numbers of engagements against coalition forces," he said. "We`ve been hitting back pretty hard. We`ve forced them to slow down the pace of their operations."

      In that way, the new American approach seems to share the successes of the Israeli military, at least in the short term; Israeli officers contend that their strategy regularly stops catastrophes like suicide bombings from taking place.

      "If you do nothing, they will just get stronger," said Martin van Creveld, professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He briefed American marines on Israeli tactics in urban warfare in September.

      The problems in Abu Hishma, a town of 7,000, began in October, when the American military across the Sunni triangle decided to ease off on their military operations to coincide with the onset of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

      In Abu Hishma, as in other towns, the backing off by the Americans was not reciprocated by the insurgents. American troops regularly came under mortar fire, often traced to the surrounding orchards.

      Meanwhile, the number of bombs planted on nearby roads rose sharply. Army convoys regularly took fire from a house a few miles away from the village.

      The last straw for the Americans came on Nov. 17, when a group of guerrillas fired a rocket-propelled grenade into the front of a Bradley armored personnel carrier. The grenade, with an armored piercing tip, punched through the Bradley`s shell and killed Staff Sgt. Dale Panchot, one of its crewmen.

      The grenade went straight into the sergeant`s chest. With the Bradley still smoldering, the soldiers of the First Battalion, Eighth Infantry, part of the Fourth Infantry Division, surrounded Abu Hishma and searched for the guerrillas. Soldiers began encasing the town in razor wire.

      The next day, an American jet dropped a 500-bomb on the house that had been used to attack them. The Americans arrested eight sheiks, the mayor, the police chief and most members of the city council. "We really hammered the place," Maj. Darron Wright said.

      Two and a half weeks later, the town of Abu Hishma is enclosed in a barbed-wire fence that stretches for five miles. Men ages 18 to 65 have been ordered to get identification cards. There is only way into the town and one way out.

      "This fence is here for your protection," reads the sign posted in front of the barbed-wire fence. "Do not approach or try to cross, or you will be shot."

      American forces have used the tactic in other cities, including Awja, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein. American forces also sealed off three towns in western Iraq for several days.

      "With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said.

      The bombing of the house, about a mile outside the barbed wire, is another tactic that echoes those of the Israeli Army. In Iraq, the Americans have bulldozed, bombed or otherwise rendered useless a number of buildings which they determined were harboring guerrillas.

      In Tikrit, residents pointed out a home they said had been bulldozed by American tanks. The occupants had already left, they said.

      "I watched the Americans flatten that house," said Abdullah al-Ajili, who lives down the road.

      American officers acknowledge that they have destroyed buildings around Tikrit. In a recent news conference, General Sanchez explained the strategy but ignored a question about parallels to the Israeli experience.

      "Well, I guess what we need to do is go back to the laws of war and the Geneva Convention and all of those issues that define when a structure ceases to be what it is claimed to be and becomes a military target," General Sanchez said. "We`ve got to remember that we`re in a low-intensity conflict where the laws of war still apply."

      In Abu Hishma, residents complain that the village is locked down for 15 hours a day, meaning that they are unable to go to the mosque for morning and evening prayers. They say the curfew does not allow them time to stand in the daylong lines for gasoline and get home before the gate closes for the night.

      But mostly, it is a loss of dignity that the villagers talk about. For each identification card, every Iraqi man is assigned a number, which he must hold up when he poses for his mug shot. The card identifies his age and type of car. It is all in English.

      "This is absolutely humiliating," said Yasin Mustafa, a 39-year-old primary school teacher. "We are like birds in a cage."

      Colonel Sassaman said he would maintain the wire enclosure until the villagers turned over the six men who killed Sergeant Panchot, though he acknowledged they may have slipped far away.

      Colonel Sassaman is feared by many of Abu Hishma`s villagers, who hold him responsible for the searches and razor wire around the town. But some said they understood what a difficult job he had, trying to pick out a few bad men from a village of 7,000 people.

      "Colonel Sassaman, you should come and live in this village and be a sheik," Hassan Ali al-Tai told the colonel outside the checkpoint.

      The colonel smiled, and Mr. Tai turned to another visitor.

      "Colonel Sassaman is a very good man," he said. "If he got rid of the barbed wire and the checkpoint, everyone would love him."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 11:33:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.145 ()
      The greening of America
      Some of the boldest environmental decisions are now coming from the world`s most reviled country

      Will Hutton
      Sunday December 7, 2003
      The Observer

      The most eyecatching and effective radical politics continues to come from the environmental movement. It is the United Nations` warning that global warming threatens the Western middle class`s ski resorts in the Alps and the Rockies that captures the headlines, and no issue unites such universal condemnation as George Bush not signing the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

      The EU is ignored or scoffed at on most issues, but when it publishes a league table, as it did last week, showing how feebly its member states are implementing their commitment to control carbon-dioxide emissions by 2010, the criticism falls away. It is doing a good job revealing how indifferently we are confronting what everyone agrees is the greatest challenge of our times - how to avoid a global environmental disaster.

      There is the familiar cast of villains: the United States; selfish Western lifestyles; Russian cupidity in not signing Kyoto; China`s obsession with industrialisation. And, above all, our predisposition to refuse to acknowledge slowly evolving but none the less catastrophic threats. We cannot help but live for now.

      We have to change, to act collectively and internationally to challenge the worrying trends. Icecaps are shrinking, the ozone layer is thinning, deep ocean currents are being upset and, if you believe some environmentalists, we are fast approaching a tipping point when the rate of acceleration of global warming will wreak havoc. We must act, protest and sound the tocsin.

      I admire the political achievement, am alarmed by the suggested trends and I want to join in, but I`m beginning to wonder whether we have not reached the limits of where green politics can go. For the environmental movement has much bigger roots than just its apparent concern with ecological issues. As a result, we can`t take all the claims and counterclaims at face value.

      The emergence of global environmentalism as one of the most dynamic and influential social movements of our times is not just because there is evidence that the earth may be warming. It is a much deeper response to what the brilliant Spanish sociologist Professor Manuel Castells describes as the emergence of a globalised information age and the accompanying loosening of our ideological and cultural moorings

      For what drives environmentalism is the need to reassert identity before the massive forces that threaten to rob us of what we mean to ourselves and our chances of controlling them. For example, the protests about another runway at Heathrow or Stansted, using environmental arguments to support the case against air pollution, noise and threats to the natural habitat, are not, at heart, about the environment; they are about local neighbourhoods reacting with alarm to another and uncontrollable intrusion that they seem powerless to influence, but want somehow to resist.

      Moreover, in a secular age, citizens want to rationalise and support their arguments with evidence, so they turn to science for help and quickly the debate becomes whether the predicted degree of air pollution is justifiable or not. Batteries of scientific evidence are exchanged and, all the while, local lobby groups surge in influence, thus the character of the green movement - local activism while marshalling scientific evidence against `establishment science` - and all to control local space and the identities that go with it.

      As in the fight against a runway or the building of a nuclear power station, so in the fight against global warming. The late Petra Kelly, one of the founders of the German green movement, used to say that the primary goal of green politics is `an inner revolution, the greening of the self... to simplify our lives and live in ways that affirm ecological and human values`. She captured an important truth. As Castells argues, it is no accident that the rise of environmentalism as a social movement coincided with globalisation. This was and is a way of reasserting human values, that life is master of science, before a juggernaut that asserts the opposite, but resistance, paradoxically, has to deploy science against science to achieve the results it wants.

      Environmentalists castigate the conservative environmental sceptics who try to use science to discredit environmental science that proves global warming.

      The difficulty is that the decades for which we possess good data are absurdly short in which to make conclusive remarks about climate change. To get long-run data, temperatures in centuries past have to be inferred from fossil and tree-growth rings, which are notoriously subject to error.

      An important and neutral paper by Canadians Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick suggests that the best guess is that, while temperatures are currently rising, they probably lie within the range for the past 600 years. Environmentalists, just as in a battle over a new runway, are being as partisan in their use of science as their opponents.

      Nor is the US a Great Satan against which the rest of the world should unite. It has the best organised and most broadly based environmental movement in the world; this is the home of the Sierra Club, Earth First, the Environmental Defence Fund and many other pressure groups that have persuaded 29 state legislatures to introduce Kyoto Protocol-conforming measures on carbon-dioxide emissions. Whether it is California`s law on freezing emissions from new cars or six New England states agreeing to cap overall carbon-dioxide emissions by 2010 - they are all showing more commitment than smug France, Ireland, Spain and Denmark, which are allowing emissions to grow. If the Kyoto Protocol could accept that these US states, rather than the federal government, are meeting its terms, it could meet its required threshold for industrialised country participation without either the US or Russia, and ratification could proceed.

      The Bush Administration may be careless of the environment; US states and tens of millions of Americans are not, just as you would expect if environmentalism`s real roots lie in reactions to contemporary economy and society. If Castells is right that the real battle is about identity, control and fairness, then it would be better for everyone if the earth warriors understood what they were really about, who are their real enemies and who their friends.

      The pity is that all this radicalism is being poured into a movement that can only take us so far, and that is channelled away from social democratic and liberal politics where the big fights over economic and social organisation are. But social democrats need to be prepared to have those fights.

      While the disconnect exists, we win neither the arguments over carbon-dioxide emissions nor over how to organise globalisation so it is fairer. The argument is power and politics. Let`s please cast it in those terms.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 11:39:38
      Beitrag Nr. 10.146 ()
      Global growth hangs in the balance
      William Keegan
      Sunday December 7, 2003
      The Observer

      At a time when the European Union`s enemies can hardly conceal their glee at its apparent disunity, and when champions of that cause are close to despair, Brussels has won a resounding victory.

      I refer to President George W Bush`s decision to lift the steel tariffs he imposed early last year in an action that drove a coach and horses through the free trade agenda that the US had pursued for so long.

      Bush`s action was obviously illegal at the time, and duly declared so by the World Trade Organisation. The EU threatened retaliatory action, and hit Bush where it hurt. While Bush was conscious of his own electoral considerations in the key steel states, in the words of David Sanger of the New York Times, the retaliatory tariffs threatened by Brussels also `targeted electoral battleground states - from textile mills in the Carolinas to farmers in the Mid-West - with a precision that Karl Rove, the President`s political adviser, must have grudgingly admired.`

      External trade is one of the few areas where the EU acts coherently and with clout, and can stand up to the might of the US in a way that President Chirac wishes were more common. There is a moral here for the future effectiveness of European economic policy. This is unlikely to be the last bout of what Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has called `creeping protectionism` in the US, and the fact is that, from Bush`s viewpoint, US steel makers were given leeway to restructure, assisted not least by the decline in the dollar over the last 18 months. On the other hand, US steel users, such as the auto industry, were not too happy, although they were in better shape to stand the shock than the pre-tariff steel industry.

      At a time when it does not look as though his adventures in Iraq have won him many electoral prizes, Bush is relying on economic recovery to save him. At first sight it looks good: the third quarter growth rate has been revised up to 8.2 per cent a year in real terms, and the devaluation of the dollar has added to the boost administered by the US government and the Federal Reserve.

      As Lehman Brothers states in its latest global letter: `By our calculations, the US stimulus [fiscal and monetary] after September 11, 2001, amounted to 4.75 per cent of US GDP, implying that the US economy, instead of being essentially flat, would have declined in 2002 by 4 per cent or more.` But as Lehman`s adds: `Now, however, the US has little fiscal or monetary ammunition left.`The worrying thing for Europe and the rest of the world is that many other countries have been relying too much on this year`s US recovery. Thus the Bundesbank pointed out in its October monthly report that `the German economy has been in a state of virtual stagnation since mid-2000... Given the macro-economic growth from mid-2000 to mid-2003 of merely 0.75 per cent in working-day-adjusted terms, real domestic demand declined by 1.75 per cent whereas real exports as defined in the national accounts expanded by 8 per cent.`

      The Bundesbank added that, with the euro strengthening, exports fell by 1.5 per cent (seasonally adjusted, in real terms) between the second half of 2002 and the first half of this year. This puts the mild recovery of exports in the Eurozone during the third quarter (associated with what everybody agrees is an unsustainable US expansion of demand) in perspective.

      Lehman`s, which correctly forecast at the end of last year that the euro would rise from just over $1 to $1.20 by December this year, is now forecasting $1.30 by the end of next year. But when the markets lose confidence in a currency, they can move very fast and fulfil such forecasts earlier. Some European industrialists are seriously concerned about the implications for the European economy of a sustained rise above $1.20 and I detect a whiff of panic in the air.

      Even the diplomatic new president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, said last week that the ECB was concerned about the sustainability of global economic growth and the risk that it might be undermined by external imbalances.

      This is a reference to the imbalances of the US. As John Llewellyn of Lehman`s points out: `This [US] recovery starts with unusually large imbalances.` If one goes right back to the end of the Second World War, one does not find a US recovery beginning with the balance of payment on current account in such a precarious position. By the end of previous recessions the current account was typically either in small surplus (1 per cent of GDP in 1991) or negligible deficit (0.4 per cent in 1982).

      But whereas the current deficit was 4.3 per cent of GDP at the peak of the latest US economic cycle in the fourth quarter of 2000, it was no less than 5 per cent in the second quarter of this year (the trough). And the latest Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Economic Outlook shows that the OECD, even after the devaluation of the dollar so far, is showing no end to the process, with current deficits of 5 per cent of GDP this year and next, and 5.1 per cent in 2005.

      The OECD says: `The combination of large public and external deficits in the US could be a source of exchange rate instability, given the potentially short run nature of so much of the international capital currently flowing in. Under such delicate circumstances, a sudden weakening of the dollar could stifle a fledgling European recovery.`

      One of my European industrialist friends said last week: `They see the danger [in political and official circles] but they just don`t want to know.` But perhaps they are beginning to. On Thursday Caio K Koch-Weser, State Secretary at the German Ministry of Finance, was reported as suggesting that `the Central Bank might intervene in the market to slow the rise of currency`.

      Paul Volcker, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, said earlier this year in evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union: `It is hard for me to believe that the size of the exchange rate movement we have seen up and down against the euro is entirely benign in terms of its impact on the structure of the economy and economic activity. Typical economic theory these days is that you cannot control the exchange rate: you cannot influence the exchange market without damaging exchange rate objectives. I do not believe that but that is the belief.`

      The present situation is complicated. The Group of Seven leading industrial countries emphasised in September that `more flexibility in exchange rates is desirable for major countries or economic areas to promote smooth and widespread adjustments to the international financial system`. They had Japan and China in mind, but it is the Eurozone that is bearing the brunt.

      This is a potential crisis that almost certainly demands a change of policy at the ECB - towards exchange market intervention and lower interest rates - and serious international co-operation. Ed Balls, chief economic adviser to the Treasury, told BBC4 last week `the Eurozone is moving towards a more sensible, more long-termist, more flexible interpretation of the [stability] pact` - which would not be before time.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 11:43:22
      Beitrag Nr. 10.147 ()
      Iraqi colonel: I am WMD claim source
      By Andrew Clennell
      07 December 2003


      An Iraqi colonel said yesterday that he was the source of the Government`s "dodgy dossier" claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

      Lieutenant-Colonel al-Dabbagh, who said he was the head of an Iraqi air defence unit in the desert, outed himself. But he explained that the weapons he was talking about were battlefield weapons to be fired from rocket-propelled grenades, and were not for use in missiles.

      "They arrived in boxes marked `Made in Iraq` and looked like something you fired with a rocket-propelled grenade," Col al-Dabbagh told The Sunday Telegraph.

      "They were either chemical or biological weapons; I don`t know which, because only the Fedayeen and the Special Republican Guard were allowed to use them. All I know is we were told that when we used these weapons we had to wear gas masks."

      When shown the information about the 45-minute claim in the Iraq WMD dossier issued by the Government in September 2002, he said: "I am the one responsible for providing this. Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half an hour."

      The 45-minute claim led to the death of scientist Dr David Kelly, after BBC journalist -Andrew Gilligan reported a source telling him the dossier was "sexed up" by Downing Street and that the 45-minute claim was included against MI6`s wishes.

      Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, told the Hutton inquiry into Dr Kelly`s death on 22 September that he knew the claim in the dossier referred to battlefield weapons only.

      Andrew Caldecott QC, for the BBC, then asked: "A number of newspapers had banner headlines suggesting this [the 45-minute claim] related to strategic missiles. Why was no corrective statement issued for the benefit of the public?" Mr Hoon replied: "I don`t know."

      Col al-Dabbagh, who was described as an advisor to the Iraqi Governing Council, said he was not prepared to release his first name for safety reasons. But he said he was willing to give evidence to the Hutton inquiry. British intelligence previously said it relied on a single senior officer from the Iraqi military for the WMD claim.

      A Downing Street spokesman would not confirm or deny last night whether Col al-Dabbagh was the source of the 45-minute claim.

      However, Col al-Dabbagh doubted Saddam developed missiles that could carry WMD and hit targets such as Israel or Britain`s Cyprus military bases.

      Col al-Dabbagh said he had no idea what became of the weapons he was describing. He believed the weapons would not be found until Saddam was caught or killed, as people would then feel freer to speak about them.
      7 December 2003 11:42



      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 11:46:49
      Beitrag Nr. 10.148 ()
      December 7, 2003
      Coalition Strike in Afghanistan Kills 9 Children
      By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.

      KABUL, Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 7 — United States warplanes attacking a suspected member of the Taliban killed nine children in the southeastern province of Ghazni on Saturday, Afghan and American military officials confirmed Sunday morning. One man was also killed in the attack, they said.

      In a statement issued early on Sunday from the headquarters of the American-led military forces at Bagram Air Base near Kabul, the military said ground forces searching the area after the attack found the bodies of the children as well as the body of the suspect.

      "Coalition forces regret the loss of any innocent life," the statement said. It said the troops remaining in the area "will make every effort to assist the families of the innocent casualties and determine the cause of the civilian deaths."

      The statement said a commission was being set up to investigate the incident. It did not describe the air attack in any detail.

      Maj. Christopher E. West, an Army spokesman at Bagram, said the aircraft involved was an A-10 attack jet, a type that flies low and fires guns and rockets in support of infantry. A-10`s are frequently in action over Afghanistan.

      Haji Masud, an official in the governor`s office in Ghazni, confirmed the attack and said it had been aimed at Mullah Wazir, a former member of the Taliban movement. "They bombed Mullah Wazir`s house and civilians were also killed," he said in a telephone interview on Sunday morning. He gave no further details and said an official Afghan delegation had gone to the area to investigate.

      A spokesman for President Hamid Karzai in Kabul said that when first reports arrived from the region, the American military had denied that the attack occurred. Mr. Karzai has frequently asked the United States military to take greater care with bombing raids on civilian areas and with they intelligence it receives, which has often proved erroneous. There have been hundreds of civilian casualties from bombing raids during the past two years. At least 48 people were killed in July 2002 when American planes fired on a village where a wedding party was in progress.

      In another incident, eleven people from one family were killed when a bomb landed on their house near the Pakistani border in Paktika Province. The United States military quickly acknowledged the mistake, saying the attack was aimed at a group of militants whe were trying to escape across the border.

      On Oct. 30. American planes bombed a village in the northern province of Nuristan, killing six members of one family, most of them women and children, and two religious students in the village mosque. The military has not yet confirmed that its planes were in the area that night.

      In their statement, the United States military said it the targeted man had been involved in the killings of two contractors working on Afghanistan`s main highway connecting the capital with the cities of Kandahar and Herat. There have been no reported killings of contractors. Several Afghan security policemen were killed in an attack on the road in September.

      An officer at the main headquarters of Central Command in Tampa, which runs the military operations in Afghanistan as well as Iraq and elsewhere in the region, referred questions to the Bagram headquarters.

      American and allied forces in Afghanistan "follow stringent rules of engagement to specifically avoid this type of incident while continuing to target terrorists," the statement said.

      The aircraft opened fire on the suspect in what whas described as "an isolated rural site" south of the town of Ghazni, the statement said.

      The attack came about 10:30 on Saturday morning. Ghazni is about 80 miles southeast of Kabul on the road to Kandahar, the former stronghold of the Taliban movement that governed Afghanistan before the United States and Afghan opposition forces overthrew it two years ago.

      The military said the strike on Saturday was carried out "after developing extensive intelligence over an extended period of time" that determined the suspect`s whereabouts.


      Carlotta Gall reported from Kabul and John H. Cushman, Jr. from Washington.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 12:46:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.149 ()
      Die anderen Bevölkerungsgruppen wehren sich gegen die Dominanz der Shiiten.

      Hier beginnt schon die Schwierigkeit jeglicher Planung.
      Ein islamisch-shiitischer Staat würde sofort auf den Widerstand der Sunniten stoßen und natürlich auch der Kurden.

      Ich glaube die Kurden könnten wohl mit einer weitgehenden Autonomie bzw. Selbstständigkeit zufriedengestellt werden, würden aber durch die Anwesenheit dieses staatlichen Gebildes für Unruhe in den angrenzenden Staaten(Türkei, Syrien und Iran) mit kurdischer Bevölkerung sorgen und in die Zukunft verlagerten Probleme.

      Dann ein zweites Problem: Im Kurdengebiet wurden von Saddam Sunniten angesiedelt, teilweise sind diese schon mit Hilfe der USA während des Krieges vertrieben worden. Das könnte leicht zu Progromen und schlußendlich zur Vertreibeng führen.

      Da das Kurdengebiet Ölvorräte hat, würden die Kurden auch weitreichende Unterstützung bekommen.

      Das weit schwierigere Problem ist der jetzige Mittelteil des Irak mit seinen meist sunnitischen Bevölkerung und auch stark durchmischten Gebieten.

      Das ist das Stammland der Baathpartei. Die Partei hatte mal enge Verbindungen zu Syrien bis zu dem Zerwürfnis vor einigen Jahren.

      Die gemeinsamen Wurzeln müssen noch vorhanden sein und ein gemeinsamer Glaube eint sie. Eine Unterstützung von der Seite ist zu erwarten.

      Das wäre schon zwei rivalisierenden Blöcke: Sunniten/Syrien und Iran/Shiiten. Wobei der kraftvollere der Iran sein dürfte.

      Saudi-Arabiens Islam ist auch sunnitisch hat aber den "Wahabismus" als Staatsreligon eine besonders strenge Form des Islam, in der auch als einziger Form des Islams die Selbstmordattentate vertreten.

      Das Saudi-Geld würde für wen fliessen?

      Shiiten gibt es noch in größeren Anteilen im Libanon, im Jemen und im Bereich von 10-20% in Pakistan und Afghanistan.

      Bei Betrachten der gescheckten Landkarte, kann ich mir eine Balkanisierung des Nahen Osten vorstellen.

      Das würde günstigenfalles zu einem Bürgerkrieg im Irak führen, der sich sehr dann auch ausweiten könnte.

      Was dann am Ende übrigbleibt weiß keiner, denn zwei lokale Atommächte könnten involviert werden: Israel und Pakistan.

      Es ist schon sehr wahrscheinlich, dass sich die USA anfänglich auf die Seite der Shiiten stellen würde, weil sich dadurch am schnellsten der Verantwortung für den Irak entledigen könnten.

      Wäre das aber vernünftig?

      December 7, 2003
      POLITICS
      Secular Leaders Worry That, Torn by Turmoil, Iraqis Will Elect an Islamic Theocracy
      By JOEL BRINKLEY

      BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 6 — For many Iraqi officials, an unspoken fear hovers like a wraith in the background of every debate over the popular elections that are supposed to take place here in June.

      It is that the Iraqi people — roiled by the fall of a brutal dictatorship, followed immediately by subjugation to a sometimes bumbling occupation force — will elect a theocratic Islamic government.

      When Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq, spoke out a week ago, calling for full national elections instead of the caucus-style balloting envisioned in the American plan for self-rule, most secular politicians concluded that he hoped the voters would elect a theocracy. At least 60 percent of the nation is Shiite, after all.

      "A lot of people are mostly afraid that the Islamists want to have direct elections because they believe clergymen will be the new government in Iraq," said Sheik Ghazi Ajil al-Yawar, an independent member of the Iraqi Governing Council.

      The Shiite clergy deny that. They profess no interest in governing the country — at least for now.

      "We don`t want at this point to have an Islamic government," said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a senior Islamic clergyman who is also on the Governing Council and is close to Ayatollah Sistani. "We don`t want a Shia government. We want a broad-based, democratic government."

      Bush administration officials have also said that, seeing that Iraq`s Shiites are not under the thumb of Iran`s, their fears of a Shiite-dominated government have diminished.

      But a variety of Iraqis worry nonetheless. They say it may not matter what Mr. Hakim says he wants. In Iraq`s present chaotic state, they fear the people may vote for the rigorous order that an Iranian-style Shiite theocracy imposes. For that reason, almost everyone except the religious leaders is determined to delay a full national election for a year or longer.

      "The whole process is boiling," said Hamid Majeed Mousa, leader of the Iraqi Communist Party. "In these abnormal conditions, it is very hard to have balanced voting. We don`t have the right conditions for elections, and that is why we could get one of these kinds of surprises."

      The American plan calls for Iraq to choose a so-called transitional assembly of 250 people nationwide next spring. The national Governing Council, as well as provincial and local governing councils, would select the assembly`s members. The Americans said they arranged the selection this way because it would be impossible to organize a full national election by next spring.

      American officials say they will support any government as long as it respects democratic principles.

      Still, hardly anyone here doubts that the Americans had an unspoken motive for organizing the elections the way they did. By relying solely on official bodies, the selection process is likely to be insulated from the popular passions that might overcome full national elections.

      The Shiite religious leaders say they believe the nation needs a broad-based, inclusive government during this volatile period.

      "All the parties have anxieties now," Mr. Hakim said. "That is why everyone should participate in this period." In the future, he added, "we will have a Parliament and a press so that people will be able to monitor what the government does."

      At the same time, however, Mr. Hakim also demands certain rights for religion, no matter what kind of government Iraq chooses.

      "Of course we will not support any assault or aggression against Islam," he said. No matter what form of government the people may choose, Mr. Hakim and Ayatollah Sistani insist that no law the government enacts may conflict with Islamic doctrine.

      The actual population numbers suggest that electing a Shiite theocracy should be impossible. About 40 percent of the nation`s population is Sunni, Kurd or some other minority, and is unlikely ever to vote for a Shiite religious leader. The remaining 60 percent is Shiite. But even religious leaders acknowledge that a great portion of those people are secular and would not vote to elect a theocratic government.

      "About 30 to 35 percent" of the Shiites are secular, said Abdul Latif al-Mayah, a political scientist and the chairman of the Arab Homeland Studies Center at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. "But if the conditions in Iraq are still as they are now, I think even the educated, secular people will vote for a fundamentalist government."

      One quandary behind all this is the realization that, even now, more than seven months after the fall of Baghdad, no figure has emerged who comes anywhere near being regarded as a popular leader for all of Iraq. In this leadership vacuum, when Iraqis discuss what they are looking for in their leader, they sound very much like a teenager describing an ideal date for the prom.

      "He should have a shining history," Mr. Mousa said. "He should be accepted socially, honest, clean, educated, smart, intellectual."

      Mowaffak al-Rubaie, another member of the Governing Council, said, "It should be someone who is highly educated, knows the outside world and knows the language of human rights."

      No one who seems to fit those descriptions has come forward yet, another reason that most Iraqi politicians want to delay a national vote for a leader by a year or two.

      "That will give time for people to come forward," Mr. Mousa said.

      "We are moving to a new phase of our lives," Sheik Yawar said, "but we don`t know what it is."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 12:51:54
      Beitrag Nr. 10.150 ()
      December 7, 2003
      DISCOUNT NATION
      Is Wal-Mart Good for America?
      By STEVE LOHR

      THE annual celebration of the American consumer economy — the holiday shopping season — is just underway, and Wal-Mart, the juggernaut of retailing, already seems to have claimed its first victim. The corporate owner of F.A.O. Schwarz stores said last week that it would file for bankruptcy. Bemoaning the news, analysts explained that the F.A.O. Schwarz formula of selling premium-priced toys in sumptuous surroundings could not withstand the steady advance of Wal-Mart into the toy business.

      "Will Wal-Mart Steal Christmas?" asked a Time magazine headline.

      The toy war is merely the most recent manifestation of what is known as the Wal-Mart effect. To the company`s critics, Wal-Mart points the way to a grim Darwinian world of bankrupt competitors, low wages, meager health benefits, jobs lost to imports, and devastated downtowns and rural areas across America.

      Yet there is a wider, less partisan view of the company, which perhaps more visibly than any other corporation marches to the mandate of the global capitalist economy.

      "Wal-Mart is the logical end point and the future of the economy in a society whose pre-eminent value is getting the best deal," said Robert B. Reich, the former labor secretary and a professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis University.

      To the company`s supporters, Wal-Mart is an agent of economic virtue, using its market power to force suppliers to become more efficient and passing the gains on to consumers as lower prices. The enthusiasts say Wal-Mart is a big reason for the country`s almost nonexistent inflation and impressive productivity gains.

      There is a lot to be said for getting the best deal, economists say. Prices, they note, are essentially a yardstick of efficiency, translated into consumer terms. Prices are concrete and measurable, while other values of consumer and social welfare — say, product quality or job preservation — are often hard to quantify or require costly intervention like protectionism or subsidies.

      Moreover, some economists note, lower prices for the kinds of basic goods on sale at Wal-Mart superstores, like food and clothes, are of the greatest benefit to the less affluent. Grocery prices, for example, drop an average of 10 to 15 percent in markets Wal-Mart has entered, analysts say.

      "Wal-Mart is the greatest thing that ever happened to low-income Americans," said W. Michael Cox, chief economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. "They can stretch their dollars and afford things they otherwise couldn`t."

      Wal-Mart is the largest American corporation in terms of sales, $245 billion last year. It is now the nation`s largest grocer, toy seller and furniture retailer. More than 30 percent of the disposable diapers purchased in the country are sold in Wal-Mart stores, as are 30 percent of hair-care products, 26 percent of toothpaste and 20 percent of pet food. Wal-Mart has nearly 3,000 stores in the United States, and plans to add an additional 1,000 over the next five years. Increasingly, the company is taking its formula abroad; Wal-Mart is now the largest private employer in Mexico.

      The prospect of Wal-Mart amassing even more market power does not worry free-market economists like Mr. Cox. Despite the company`s gains, the retail industry is still not highly concentrated, he said, with Wal-Mart accounting for 20 percent of the sales of the 100 largest retailers. Its success has been built, Mr. Cox said, on mastering the use of information technology to streamline its operations — much like Dell Computer in the personal computer business. Inevitably, less efficient rivals will be winnowed, he added, and those that remain will compete aggressively for consumer dollars.

      "With the new technology of the information age," Mr. Cox said, "we`re moving to a new market structure in a lot of industries. And the optimal number of firms has gone way down."

      Antitrust has traditionally been the tool for insuring competition and keeping a watchful eye on powerful companies. But the evolution of antitrust policy over the last 30 years — to emphasize price, not the number of competitors — has actually worked to the advantage of businesses like Wal-Mart.

      In the past, antitrust policy assumed that more companies meant more competition, which was good for consumers. The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 — sometimes called the anti-chain store act — was passed partly to protect small local retailers from the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, the Wal-Mart of its time. It prohibited price discrimination, or discounts, to different purchasers when the effect was to lessen competition. At the time, the drift of antitrust policy was to restrain big business and protect mom-and-pop stores.

      The populist tinge to antitrust continued for decades. In ordering the break-up of the Aluminum Company of America in 1945, Judge Learned Hand of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrote that the purpose of antitrust was to "perpetuate and preserve, for its own sake and in spite of possible cost, an organization of industry in small units which can effectively compete against each other."

      In 1966, the Supreme Court sided with the Federal Trade Commission in challenging a merger in the Los Angeles grocery market, Von`s Grocery and Shopping Bag Food Stores, which together had only 7.5 percent of the local market.

      But the intellectual tide shifted by the 1980`s, especially under the growing influence of the so-called Chicago school of economics, which emphasized prices as the fundamental gauge of consumer welfare. Market concentration and company size meant little. If big companies raised prices, they were bad. But if, like Wal-Mart, they achieved greater efficiency from economies of scale and passed the benefits onto consumers as lower prices, they were praised.

      "Has our thinking on antitrust driven us toward an economic world that Wal-Mart represents?" asked Andrew I. Gavil, a professor at the Howard University law school. "I would say that it has. The harder question is whether that is a good or a bad thing."

      To keep cutting costs, Wal-Mart is tough on its suppliers. Selling to Wal-Mart, by all accounts, is a brutal meritocracy. Manufacturers have been forced to lay off workers after Wal-Mart canceled orders when another vendor cut its price a few cents more. Other suppliers have shifted to low-cost operations in China and elsewhere when squeezed by Wal-Mart to cut costs further.

      Yet here again, many analysts regard Wal-Mart`s practices as simply leading the way in the inevitable drive to making the economy more efficient. "Wal-Mart is tough, but totally honest and straightforward in its dealings with vendors," said Michael J. Silverstein, a senior vice president at the Boston Consulting Group. "Wal-Mart has forced manufacturers to get their act together and forced them to compete internationally."

      There is some evidence that the company`s zeal for efficiency has gone too far. Wal-Mart`s detractors point to a trail of litigation over pinch-penny issues like unpaid overtime, and to a federal investigation into its use of poorly paid illegal immigrants as janitors. Wal-Mart insists that any problems do not reflect the culture of the company as a whole. "If there is valid criticism that comes from these cases, we will own up to it and made improvements," said Ray Bracy, vice president of international corporate affairs for Wal-Mart.

      Wal-Mart`s growing power has brought increased scrutiny from federal and state regulators. But as long as the company keeps delivering lower prices, they will most likely be reluctant to act, beyond prosecuting employment infractions. The classic behavior of a predatory corporation is to cut prices to drive out competition in order to raise them later. There is no evidence yet that that is the Wal-Mart strategy.

      "Consumers get huge benefits from Wal-Mart as long as it has real competition," Mr. Reich said. "The worry is that it becomes so powerful that it can unfairly stifle competition."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 12:55:07
      Beitrag Nr. 10.151 ()
      December 7, 2003
      HARVESTING POVERTY
      The Case Against King Cotton

      The Bush administration has wisely decided to lift steel tariffs deemed illegal by the World Trade Organization. But an even more potent test of American fealty to principles of fair competition, and to international trade law, looms on the horizon. Will the United States scrap its costly array of cotton-growing subsidies if they, too, are found illegal by the W.T.O.?

      The question is of immense importance to impoverished farmers in places like West Africa, whose livelihoods are hurt by America`s unfair, taxpayer-financed version of global trade. It is also pressing. Brazil has mounted a strong legal challenge to America`s cotton subsidies. It is a historic case, the first time agricultural subsidies are being credibly challenged before the W.T.O. A preliminary decision is expected next spring.

      There is nothing that creates more anger and disillusionment in poor and developing countries than the refusal of rich nations to play by fair rules when it comes to agriculture. The United States, Europe and Japan use government subsidies to make their farmers` products more competitive. In many cases, they wind up selling their produce for less than it costs to grow, elbowing other countries` goods out of the global marketplace.

      Until now, the losers got no help from the W.T.O. At that body`s inception in 1995, the wealthy nations rammed through a so-called peace clause that gave them the right to bend the rules as much as they wanted as long as their subsidies did not rise beyond the level of 1992. They argued that it would provide some time to address the issue through negotiations. But as the failed September W.T.O. talks in Cancún showed, Europe, Japan and the United States are unwilling or unable to terminate the addiction to farm subsidies on their own.

      Fortunately, the peace clause will lapse next year, despite shameless attempts by Europe and America to have it extended. And Brazil`s cotton challenge can proceed regardless because Washington`s payments to cotton growers have exceeded the already astronomic 1992 levels. Brazil`s lawyers have mounted a compelling case, as even some Bush administration officials privately concede, that America`s subsidies have indeed suppressed global prices and stolen market share from others.

      American cotton costs a great deal to produce by international standards. Yet even though global cotton prices were crashing from 1999 to 2002, our share of global exports grew to 40 percent, from 25 percent. That was because Washington propped up King Cotton with $12.9 billion in subsidies. We were, in effect, paying the rest of the world to buy American product rather than the cheaper cotton grown in Africa and South America. In recent arguments in its W.T.O. case, Brazil offered credible expert testimony that absent Washington`s subsidies, America would have exported some 40 percent less cotton. That actually seems like a conservative estimate. Still, it illustrates the magnitude of the injustice being perpetrated against poor nations for which cotton might be the only competitive export.

      Antiglobalization protesters who claim to act on behalf of the world`s poor are fond of taking aim at the World Trade Organization, but the cotton case shows that what the developing world needs is not a weaker trade referee, but a stronger one capable of standing up to rich nations.

      Poor African farmers and American taxpayers stand to gain if the W.T.O. does what Congress should have done long ago, and kills our cotton subsidies. Brazil should prevail, and with the peace clause`s retirement, more such cases should be brought against indefensible agricultural protectionism.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 13:00:15
      Beitrag Nr. 10.152 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 13:03:39
      Beitrag Nr. 10.153 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 13:09:28
      Beitrag Nr. 10.154 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Terrorism Jars Jewish, Arab Party Loyalties


      By Laura Blumenfeld
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Sunday, December 7, 2003; Page A01


      President Bush has her vote, said Dina Shapiro, standing in line at Bagel Power, a Jewish bakery in Scarsdale, N.Y. She applauds his war on terrorism.

      Bush won`t get her vote, said Alia Charara, standing in line at New Yasmin Arabic bakery in Dearborn, Mich. She fears his war on terrorism.

      Shapiro, who comes from a family of liberal Jewish Democrats, sees Bush as a man who is looking after her kin. Her nephew lives in Israel: "Just as I feel Bush is taking care of me, he`s taking care of my sister`s son."

      Charara, whose Muslim family voted for Bush in 2000, sees the president as a man who is persecuting her kin. Her uncle was arrested recently in New York, she said: "They said he was giving secrets to Lebanon when all he was doing was calling his wife."

      In the last presidential election, Arabs supported the Republican candidate while Jews overwhelmingly backed the Democrat. That was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Bush`s response. Since then, the political moorings of the two communities have come loose. Democratic and Republican leaders are trying to catch them as they drift. Though they are small in numbers, Arab and Jewish populations are concentrated in several swing states, such as Michigan and Florida. And Jewish donors play a role in many campaigns.

      Sensing an opening, Democratic presidential contenders have reached out to Arab voters, speaking at an Arab American Institute conference this fall in Detroit. AAI President James Zogby, a Democrat, quipped: "They didn`t come because we have pretty brown eyes." But then, the Democratic National Committee also held an emergency strategy session last year to address reported Republican gains among Jews.

      Republicans, meanwhile, describe a White House so at ease with Judaism that Jay Lefkowitz, then deputy assistant for domestic policy, blew a three-foot shofar, or ram`s horn, at a senior staff meeting during the High Holy Days, drawing laughter and applause from senior strategist Karl Rove. But when asked to invite a Sunni Muslim leader to a White House event supporting the Iraq war, Khaled Saffuri, chairman of the conservative Islamic Free Market Institute, said no one would go.

      "If you defend this administration, it`s like saying cancer is good for you," Saffuri said. Arabs tell him they will vote for a Democrat -- "any Democrat."

      Jack A. Abramoff, a lobbyist and a leading Jewish Republican fundraiser, is predicting a more favorable trend in his community. "We could see a tremendous shift," he said. "Bush is the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history."

      To be sure, neither the Arab community nor the Jewish community is a monolith. Committed Republican Arab leaders such as Yahya Basha remain loyal to Bush despite "a great deal of stress on the mind and body," Basha said. "I keep gaining weight, and losing hair and teeth." Many Iraqi Americans are pro-Bush because he ousted Saddam Hussein. Dearborn resident Sahib Al-Hathaf, an Iraqi American who fought with a U.S. infantry regiment in Baghdad, described Bush as "second only to Allah" and said, "I`d vote for him 20 times if I could."

      Moreover, claims of defections among Jews are exaggerated, Democratic operatives said. Steve Rabinowitz, a Jewish media strategist, dismissed them as Republican spin. "Every two years, our Republican Jewish friends -- both of them, I like to joke -- say this is going to be the year Jews trend Republican," he said. "In November, it proves not to be true."

      Jews have been a mainstay of the Democratic Party ever since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president. That is changing, say Republicans, especially among younger, suburban voters. As one senior Bush administration official put it: "I don`t get the eye-rolls at bar mitzvahs anymore."

      Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said that when he campaigned for Bush in 2000, "everyone was suspicious" of Bush`s intentions. As governor of Texas, Bush had questioned whether Jews could enter heaven. His father had a strained relationship with the community. In 2000, Bush scraped together 19 percent of the Jewish vote. Since taking office, however, he has cried during a visit to Auschwitz, cold-shouldered Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and embraced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as "a man of peace."

      Some link Bush`s positions to his support from evangelical Christians. "The Bible Belt is Israel`s security belt," said Daniel Lapin, a rabbi allied with Christian groups. Others point to Bush`s war on terrorism.

      "There`s a natural synergy. We`re all in the same struggle," Brooks said. Indeed, after the attacks in 2001, a group of rabbis wrote a prayer for the president and the military, which Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, recited in Hebrew at the start of a Cabinet meeting this summer: "Heavenly Father . . . protect the defenders of the United States of America wherever they may be. Bless them with victory."

      Arab American leaders cite no post-Sept. 11 Arabic prayer for Bush. Instead, some quote a saying: "Bush is bosh," slang for "Bush is a losing bet." Ahmad Chebbani, a Democrat and president of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn, said, "Now I feel like a hero."

      In 2000, Chebbani supported Democrat Al Gore at the endorsement meeting of the Arab American Leadership Council. The majority favored Bush. Gore was seen as too pro-Israel; his running mate, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), was a religious Jew. Bush, on the other hand, had courted the Arabs, advocating the elimination of the use of secret evidence for prosecuting suspected terrorists. At the AALC meeting, Chebbani recalled, "people were shouting, almost throwing chairs at each other. I was pounding the table, `This is a huge mistake!` "

      In the general election, Arabs chose Bush over Gore by 14 percentage points. (Arab analysts say the margin would have been bigger, but Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, a Lebanese American, took 17 percent of the Arab vote.) Since then, the Bush administration has imposed stricter immigration policies and has eased restrictions on the use of secret evidence with the USA Patriot Act. Many view Bush`s occupation of Iraq and aid to Israel as part of a global war on Islam.

      "Now people say, `We should have listened to you,` " Chebbani said.

      In a poll by John Zogby, an Arab American (and James Zogby`s brother), 33 percent of Arab Americans said they would vote for Bush, compared with about half of the general population. The 2000 census reported that people of Arab descent were 0.43 percent of the U.S. population and 1.2 percent of the population of Michigan, a swing state.

      Jews, on the other hand, are drifting toward the GOP. In 2002, the American Jewish Committee estimated that Jews are 2.1 percent of the U.S. population and 3.9 percent of Florida, also a swing state. A poll by Steven Cohen of Hebrew University found that almost half the Jews who chose Gore over Bush are uncertain they would vote the same way today. Perhaps even more crucial, prominent Democratic donors have crossed party lines. Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress and a supporter of Democrats, wrote a $100,000 check last year to the Republican National Committee. "It would be a mistake for the Jewish community not to show our appreciation to the president," Rosen said.

      There have been crossovers in the Arab community as well. Nabil Sater, a Michigan businessman who calls himself "a Republican orphan," said he feels "lied to, and cheated on," by Bush and by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), a staunch ally of Israel. For the first time, Sater said, he is giving thousands of dollars to Democrats.

      Arab Americans, however, are not a major source of campaign funds. Jews provided at least half the money donated to the DNC in the 1998 and 2000 election cycles. At the RNC, Lew Eisenberg, who is Jewish, was finance chairman until he became finance chairman of the host committee for the Republican National Convention recently. At Bush-Cheney fundraisers in Washington, California, New York and Florida, rabbis gave the invocations.

      Ira N. Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said that Jews are the most politicized ethnic group in the country. "Karl Rove has a Jewish strategy," Forman said. "It`s largely about money -- but it goes way beyond that."

      Democrats have a Jewish strategy, too, they say. For some candidates that has meant shaking the family tree. Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) recently discovered he had Jewish grandparents. Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark talks of his Jewish father. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean`s wife and children are Jewish. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich`s Jewish girlfriend brags that Kucinich is a vegan out of respect for her kosher dietary laws and knows the Passover Seder by heart. But Lieberman, the only Jew in the race, has been disappointed by lackluster Jewish support, campaign workers said; many Jews, especially older, wealthier ones, feel the time is not right to have a Jew at the top of the ticket.

      Lieberman shared a synagogue pew for 10 years with Richard Heideman, honorary president of B`nai B`rith International. "We know him. We love him. I respect him," Heideman said. Even so, Heideman, a lifelong Democrat, has decided to give money to Bush: "Things have changed in this country."

      Things have changed indeed, said Imad Hamad, director of the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee in Michigan. "People would rather swallow Lieberman than deal with Bush," he said. "That`s how bad it is."

      In September, the FBI told Hamad that he would receive the bureau`s plaque for exceptional service. Two days before the ceremony, the award was withdrawn. Agents were concerned about his "problematic" associates who support terrorism, an FBI statement said. Hamad, who campaigned for Bush in 2000, is supporting Dean, the favored candidate of many Arab Americans. "People don`t have illusions that the Democrats are the salvation," he said. "But we hope they`ll be more evenhanded."

      "Evenhanded" has become a trigger word in the Dean campaign. In September, Dean said the United States should be "evenhanded" between Israel and the Arabs. His comments provoked such an outcry among Israel`s supporters that Dean hired a Jewish public relations expert, Matt Dorf.

      "It was `Oh, my God, everyone and their mother is criticizing us on Israel,` " said Dorf, who called hundreds of Jewish leaders as part of a damage-control effort. "It was unfair. His heart is with Israel."

      His campaign chairman is also with Israel. Steve Grossman, Dean`s aide-de-camp, is the former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby. "Even if the Jewish elites aren`t supporting Dean," said Grossman, "the grass roots has been passionate about Howard Dean, and many are Jews." Bush might do better than he did in 2000 among Jews, he said, but there would be no fundamental realignment.

      John Zogby agreed. The pollster`s data put a majority of Jews in the Democratic camp, along with the Arabs. In fact, Zogby said, the communities agree on more than one might imagine: They both believe in Israel`s right to exist; majorities believe in a Palestinian state; neither likes secret evidence or the Patriot Act -- Arabs because they`re the victims, Jews because they`re liberals.

      His numbers give him hope.

      "If I were a political person, I`d put on a loincloth, call myself Gandhi and say, `Hey, let`s talk, guys,` " Zogby said with a laugh. " ` `Cause it gets settled here.` "



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 14:09:09
      Beitrag Nr. 10.155 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Hearts and Minds? First, Just Win


      By Wayne Downing

      Sunday, December 7, 2003; Page B07


      The recent U.S. crackdown in the Sunni Triangle of Iraq is more than a change in tactics. It appears that the American commanders have devised a daring and risky campaign based on a new reality: that winning the hearts and minds of the Sunni Arab population is less important than winning a decisive victory over a growing insurgency that threatens the larger U.S. strategy in Iraq.

      The American intent has been clear from the start. The military must establish a degree of security that will allow the coalition to achieve the three key goals of establishing a stable, representative government, restoring basic services to a deprived population and building a free-market economy from a failed socialist state. The problem is that an anti-coalition insurgency has gotten out of hand and has created serious security problems, especially in the triangle region around Baghdad.

      Conventional wisdom asserts that winning the hearts and minds of the people is absolutely essential to success in an insurgency. Certainly U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine based on our experience in Vietnam and even as far back as the Philippine insurrection at the turn of the last century validates this dictum. U.S. forces clearly pursued this objective when they started their counterinsurgency campaign this past summer -- but with mixed success.

      Until early October, U.S. and coalition forces attempted to treat the entire civilian population (Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, Turkomen, Assyrians) with kid gloves throughout the country. As the violence escalated -- helicopters shot down, fixed sites bombed, patrols and convoys ambushed, police and political leaders targeted -- it became clear that U.S. forces would have to be more aggressive in the insurgent strongholds in the Sunni Arab region. Reviewing progress in pacifying the Sunni Triangle, I believe that American military leaders finally concluded that their restrained tactics were not dampening the insurgency and were never going to win the hearts and minds of the Sunnis as long as the people were dominated by former regime loyalists and the insurgents. So why try? It was time to take off the gloves.

      That is exactly what we are seeing: large, well-coordinated cordon and search operations prompted by the best available intelligence; willingness to enter known insurgent strongholds and directly engage the enemy even though these areas might be heavily populated; destruction of insurgents` homes with smart bombs; and sweep operations that round up all likely suspects and turn them over to trained Arab interrogators for determination of their true status -- insurgent or innocent. These aggressive operations, which are very much like those employed by the Israeli Defense Forces, are daring and risky, but it appears this campaign is beginning to take insurgents off the street and, more important, is developing useful intelligence that leads to further fruitful operations.

      This is a virtuous cycle for the United States, but time may not be on our side. Will our aggressive tactics produce success before we inflame the entire Iraqi population as well as the Sunnis against us? Will Muslim, and perhaps world, opinion, which has thus far been relatively quiet, turn further against U.S. efforts in Iraq?

      We have some yardsticks we can use to measure progress. Do the insurgent attacks in the Sunni Triangle abate? Do we capture or kill Saddam Hussein and Izzat Ibrahim, one of his top aides? Does the security situation improve enough to reestablish Iraqi police and security forces in the Sunni Triangle? Does the majority of the Sunni population begin to "see the light" and start to cooperate with the coalition and participate in rebuilding the country?

      It will be the new year before answers to some of these critical questions are apparent and give some indication whether this new campaign is working, but for now that campaign is clearly underway.

      The writer, a retired Army general, commanded U.S. Special Operations forces and was deputy national security adviser in the current administration. He now serves as chairman of the new Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 14:12:51
      Beitrag Nr. 10.156 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Legacy of a Bloody November


      By Jim Hoagland

      Sunday, December 7, 2003; Page B07


      The United States is likely to have a substantial military presence in the greater Middle East for much of the decade to come. It remains to be settled what the nature, purpose and effect of that force will be.

      Seven months of unexpectedly bitter insurgency in Iraq and the creeping return of the Taliban into Afghanistan`s southern districts have called into question many of the original assumptions of the U.S. deployments triggered by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the Bush doctrine of preemption.

      It is still possible that the American military presence in the Muslim region that stretches from North Africa deep into Central Asia will be shaped by the Wilsonian, values-centered approach of spreading democracy and freedom emphasized recently by President Bush. If so, the U.S. force will be small and supportive of friendly and liberalizing governments.

      But the bloody month of November suggests another possible future for the region. Mounting terrorism and insurgency will push the United States and its strongest coalition partners not to withdraw but to pursue strategies of national interest more vigorously. These will emphasize larger strike forces with greater over-the-horizon firepower that will concentrate on protecting oil facilities and fighting terrorist networks.

      American presidents usually go to war to protect national interests, but they go to the public with uplifting calls for the protection of liberty everywhere. As Henry Kissinger has written in his book "Diplomacy," geopolitical rationales for war have traditionally fallen flat with an idealistic American public.

      But Kissinger`s book was written before Sept. 11 and before the dawning awareness of America`s vulnerability to terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction.

      With Bush, it is difficult to tell exactly where the balance between idealism and realpolitik lies. But his promise that he will not cut and run from what is now a three-front war should be taken seriously. That would be politically disastrous for him, fatal to U.S. ambitions for international leadership and traumatic for Americans, who are overly dependent on relatively cheap gasoline and oil.

      The Middle East is the strategic crossroads of the world, the global reservoir of petroleum and home to Israel, which has political clout as well as an overwhelming moral claim on American support for its survival. Strategic retreat from the Middle East is not an option, however tempting it may appear to be.

      Added to that now is the centripetal force of the three separate but related campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq and other states targeted by networks of global terrorism. Those fronts are rapidly merging into one conflict in which the United States must fight and defeat a doctrine of ethnic and religious totalitarianism in the greater Middle East.

      The body count of what amounted to a Ramadan offensive by the fanatics and cold-blooded killers of the region topped 230. The victims included U.S. soldiers, Iraqi policemen, Turkish Jews, British diplomats, Lebanese workers in Saudi Arabia, a French U.N. volunteer in Afghanistan and others who crossed the murderers` path at the wrong moment.

      The terrorists are accomplishing something the Bush administration is accused of having neglected: They are "internationalizing" this struggle. They are creating a strategic nexus in which the United States, Europe, Russia and Asian democracies will find common elements of threat and of response.

      Much as Western countries fumbled through the opening phases of the Cold War and were galvanized into common action by the Berlin blockade, the Prague coup and aggression in Korea -- which cumulatively triggered the formation of a strong transatlantic alliance -- the world`s democracies will necessarily come together to protect themselves against this new totalitarianism.

      The struggle will not be easy or quick. The costly stalemate that the U.S.-led forces had to accept in Korea was a bitter disappointment for Washington and its allies. But in rescuing South Korea, the United States helped stabilize and promote the quest for prosperity and democracy in Asia.

      Consider this: Iranian officials have told NATO diplomats that they have no problem with the role the alliance has undertaken in Afghanistan, and Iran has taken no actions against the U.S. presence in neighboring Iraq. China has also been quietly supportive of U.S. and NATO efforts in the greater Middle East.

      Sept. 11 and the American reaction to al Qaeda`s hatred did change the world in ways often difficult to see and comprehend immediately. America was compelled to go to the heart of the greater Middle East, and will be there for years to come -- one way or another.

      jimhoagland@washpost.com



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 14:16:55
      Beitrag Nr. 10.157 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Congress`s Cop-Out On War


      By David S. Broder

      Sunday, December 7, 2003; Page B07


      On this anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, orators are reminding us that December 1941 was the last time a president asked Congress for a formal declaration of war. The war in Iraq, like all the others since World War II, was fought without such a vote.

      The congressional decision last autumn to authorize the use of force in Iraq remains controversial, as the Democratic presidential candidates who supported it -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards -- are criticized by Howard Dean and others who place themselves on the other side.

      Louis Fisher, the authority on congressional-executive relations at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, is one who argues that the failure was not personal but institutional. While joining those who challenge the intelligence the Bush administration used to justify the preemptive attack on Saddam Hussein`s regime, Fisher is even more critical of the lawmakers who sanctioned the action.

      In the fall issue of Political Science Quarterly, he writes: "Month after month, the administration released claims that were unproven" about weapons of mass destruction and links between Iraq and al Qaeda. "For its part, Congress seemed incapable of analyzing a presidential proposal and protecting its institutional powers."

      "The decision to go to war," he concludes, "cast a dark shadow over the health of U.S. political institutions and the celebrated system of democratic debate and checks and balances. The dismal performances of the executive and legislative branches raise disturbing questions about the capacity and desire of the United States to function as a republican form of government."

      That may seem to you, as it does to me, too broad an indictment. But Fisher throws down an important challenge when he zeroes in on a pattern of congressional behavior that has seen legislators sidestep the question of peace or war.

      He quotes from the House International Relations Committee report supporting the Iraq resolution: "The committee hopes that the use of military force can be avoided. It believes, however, that providing the president with the authority he needs to use force is the best way to avoid its use."

      As Fisher notes, that has become a common pattern in dealing with possible conflict. He likens it to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, which Lyndon Johnson used as authority for the escalation in Vietnam.

      The problem, he says, is that such legislation "would decide neither for nor against war. That judgment, which the Constitution places in Congress, would now be left in the hands of the president."

      Some may say that presidents, with all of their national-security apparatus, are better positioned to make the call than 535 members of Congress. But the Constitution says otherwise, that collective wisdom is to be preferred. Because this situation is likely to recur, this is not a personal or partisan question.

      Congress needs to reassert its role and step up to its responsibility.



      Barber B. Conable Jr., one of the most estimable congressmen of the past generation, whose many contributions far exceeded his fame outside the Capitol, died last week. A Republican from the Rochester, N.Y., area, Conable was notable for maintaining a clear compass on both fiscal and social issues during a 20-year span that began with the liberal enthusiasms of the Great Society and ended in the middle of the Reagan counterrevolution.

      A Marine during World War II, Conable made his mark as the ranking minority member of the Ways and Means Committee, a man whose views commanded respect on both sides of the aisle. Former representative Dan Rostenkowski, the Democratic chairman during part of that period, said, "Barber was a Republican, but first and foremost, he was a legislator. And he understood what it took to put a bill together."

      He was also an unofficial press spokesman for the GOP House contingent during those decades when Democrats enjoyed unbroken control, prowling the Speaker`s Lobby and employing his brains and sense of humor to remind reporters -- who valued him as highly as did his colleagues -- that there was more than one side to the story.

      From his antique desk, he personally composed newsletters to his constituents that rivaled those of his Democratic contemporary, the late Mo Udall of Arizona, for their wit, candor and atypical modesty. He was a marvelous example of what the House at its best can be, and when he retired voluntarily in 1985, he performed a further service as president of the World Bank.

      davidbroder@washpost.com



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 14:23:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.158 ()
      #10151 Hier kann der Artikel, der in dem WaPo Kommentar erwähnt wurde, erworben werden gegen Dollars.
      Wer die 10$ überhat kann gerne diesen Artikel hier einstellen.

      Deciding on War Against Iraq: Institutional Failures pp. 389-410
      LOUIS FISHER analyzes the performance of U.S. political institutions in authorizing the war against Iraq in October 2002. He finds that the Bush administration failed to provide correct information to Congress to justify the war and relied on tenuous claims that were discredited on many occasions. He also argues that Congress failed in its institutional duties both by voting on the Iraq resolution without sufficient evidence and by drafting the legislation in such a way that it left the power to initiate war in the hands of the President, exactly what the Framers had tried to prevent.

      http://www.psqonline.org/
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 14:48:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.159 ()
      Fair and Balanced™ Cartoons


      Cartoon Archive
      59 New Cartoons Today, wie immer wieder Sonntags nur 59 frische Cartoons:

      http://www.flu-ent.com/graveyard/20031207__059toons.htm



      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 14:51:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.160 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 14:58:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.161 ()
      The Baghdad Bush Animated GIF

      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Baghdad Boosh
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 17:12:14
      Beitrag Nr. 10.162 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-op…
      SOUTHEAST ASIA



      Near Enough to View Militancy`s Many Faces
      Bush dropped by, but he didn`t see much. A newsman`s up-close visit finds a multifaceted picture of radical Islam--including hope.
      By Mitchell Koss
      Mitchell Koss is a television news and documentary producer in Los Angeles. His work has appeared on PBS, ABC, MTV, CNN and the "Today" show.

      December 7, 2003

      When President Bush made his swing through Southeast Asia this fall, he declared the region a new front in the war on terrorism. "We will not be intimidated by terrorists," he told the Philippine Congress. But his schedule spoke otherwise.

      His visit to Manila was condensed to a mere eight hours out of concern about terrorism. In Bali, Indonesia, where more than 200 people were killed in 2002 when Islamic fundamentalists bombed two nightclubs frequented by tourists, Bush didn`t venture off the airport grounds.

      I recently visited the region, covering some of the same ground as the president. Not being as visible a target, I was able to venture a little farther afield. And the news from the front is mixed.

      The principal enemy in the area is an Al Qaeda-linked group known as Jemaah Islamiah. It turns out we`re still learning what works in combating the group. The issues facing our allies range from such things as whether authorities should tolerate schools that have graduated known terrorists, to whether former Muslim insurgents can be transformed into seaweed farmers, to whether U.S. special forces can guarantee the safety of men dressed as women competing in a lip-synching contest at a village fiesta.

      Indonesia has produced the most Jemaah Islamiah members. A struggling new democracy that is home to the world`s largest population of Muslims, the nation arrested some 200 Jemaah Islamiah members in the wake of the October 2002 Bali bombings and the partly foiled bombing of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, which killed 12 people in August. But Southeast Asia expert Andrew Tan estimates that 300 to 800 trained Jemaah Islamiah bomb makers remain at large. As Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote in an October memo, the big question is the rate at which more terrorists are being produced.

      In the town of Solo on the Indonesian island of Java, I visited Al Mukmin, an Islamic boarding school, or pesantren. It`s one of an estimated 10,000 to 14,000 pesantrens in Indonesia, but its faculty and alumni rosters differ from the rest. Many well-known terrorists attended the school, including the recently captured Hambali, who is said to be the only non-Arab in the top leadership of Al Qaeda; the Bali bombers; and a fugitive bomb maker who was killed in October in the Philippines. Its founder, Abu Bakar Bashir, is alleged to be the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah. Bashir is currently serving a three-year prison sentence for using forged documents.

      On the day that we visited, Bashir`s preschool-age grandson followed us around, sometimes pausing to play with another toddler, who was wearing a faded Osama bin Laden T-shirt. The school`s director told us that Al Mukmin taught Islam and academic subjects, not military techniques. There were signs up that encouraged jihad but also signs saying, among other things: "Without Science There Will Be Darkness." Everyone we spoke with there believed that the U.S. was waging war against Islam. The main proof they offered was that Americans suspected their pesantren of breeding terrorists.

      The school presents a conundrum to Indonesian authorities. Because Indonesia is a democracy, they say, simply closing the school is not an option. The Indonesian public is already angered by the U.S. war on terror, and shutting a school in a country with too few educational opportunities would be seen as a direct attack on Islam. Authorities have instead opted to put police informants in the school to keep an eye on things.

      Jemaah Islamiah also operates in the Philippines, but differently, given that the country is 95% Christian. Here, fighting Jemaah Islamiah depends on bringing peace to the southern island of Mindanao. Mindanao`s original inhabitants were Muslims, sometimes called Moros. But the arrival of settlers from the northern Philippines has given it a Christian majority. This, in turn, has inspired various Islamic guerrilla groups to launch anti-government insurgencies that have lasted decades.

      Mindanao can be violent. It is not only roiled by shootouts and bombings and guerrilla insurgency but plagued with robberies and kidnappings by criminal gangs. When we bought our plane tickets in Manila, the airline people asked us if we were sure that we wanted to go. One of my colleagues was advised that as both an American and someone of Chinese ethnicity, she would be doubly at risk — Chinese businesspeople are prime targets for kidnapping.

      In short, Mindanao`s a mess. And under the cover provided by this disorder, Jemaah Islamiah has been able to operate — using the island as a training ground in the way that Al Qaeda used Afghanistan under the Taliban. U.S. special forces have gone in to see what they can do.

      Our first stop was Zamboanga, the City of Flowers, in southwestern Mindanao. At Zamboanga Airport there was a box of sand provided for passengers to clear rounds from their side arms before handing them to a flight attendant.

      The area around Zamboanga is bedeviled by a small Muslim guerrilla group, Abu Sayyaf. The group, declared a terrorist organization by the U.S., kidnapped three Americans in 2001, which contributed to a U.S. decision to send 1,000 U.S. Army trainers to the area. Afterward, Philippine troops drove Abu Sayyaf off its stronghold on the neighboring smaller island of Basilan.

      On our visit last month, we went to a Philippine military base outside Zamboanga. We drove in past stalls selling food and soft drinks — the spot where a U.S. special forces member was killed in a bombing last year. Inside, a couple of special forces medics were training Philippine noncommissioned officers. The Philippine troops were in a good mood. One showed us a curved Moro knife he said he had taken from a dead Abu Sayyaf guerrilla.

      The special forces major in charge said he had only 53 men left in the area: "We`re training ourselves out of a job." The major said that Greater Zamboanga had gone from 75 bombing incidents in 2001 to a dozen last year to zero so far this year. "But don`t take our word for it," he concluded. "Go ask people if they feel safer." Later, we walked around downtown, passing many sites where there had been bombings. The streets were thronged. People told us, "Last year we wouldn`t be out after 5 or 6 p.m. Now look."

      Of course, there is still a bit to go. I was told I couldn`t jog on the streets. Instead, I jogged around the parking lot of my hotel while a security guard with a sawed-off shotgun watched.

      One night, in our hotel lobby, we ran into a local congressman whose mother is the mayor of Zamboanga. He took us, along with his bodyguards, to a fiesta in a baranguay, a cross between a barrio and a village, where he was supposed to help host the talent contest. When we arrived, there were 2,000 to 3,000 people surrounding a stage in a mud plaza, which in turn was surrounded by shacks. On the stage, two men in drag were lip-synching pop tunes while dozens more waited their turn. The congressman called my colleagues up on the stage and introduced them to the crowd. Then we interviewed some of the performers. One who identified himself as Mariah Carey said that he definitely felt safer since the arrival of the U.S. special forces. Rumsfeld could have hoped for no more.

      From Zamboanga, we flew to Cotabato in the middle of Mindanao. Here, our host drove us in a van with tinted windows and discouraged us from getting out anywhere people might see us. "We don`t want people to become interested," he said. Cotabato is more unstable than Zamboanga, but we were also getting accustomed to things like eating in restaurants guarded by men with M-16s, while our fellow diners wore side arms. That`s just how life is.

      Around Cotabato, the insurgent group is the 12,000-strong Moro Islamic Liberation Front, which has been fighting for decades for an independent homeland. The front has provided training bases for Jemaah Islamiah but has not been known to participate in action off Mindanao. One morning, a member of the liberation group came into Cotabato to meet us and direct us on mud roads to a village where the group`s political chief was meeting with community elders. He told us that because the group was fighting the Philippine military, it would take help from whomever offered it, citing Muslim groups and Middle East governments he declined to name. "But that doesn`t mean we are interested in … fighting their fights," he said.

      It`s a distinction the U.S. State Department has recognized in not declaring the Moro Islamic Liberation Front a terrorist organization. Earlier this year, a flare-up in fighting between the group and the Philippine military produced tens of thousands of refugees. But since a cease-fire began this summer, the two sides are planning peace talks. A Philippine army general told us, "We recognize that poverty is the ultimate cause of insurgency."

      With that in mind, we visited the recently pacified outlying island of Basilan, albeit with six soldiers escorting us. There, a U.S. State Department program addresses some of the 40,000-plus members of an older guerrilla group, the Moro National Liberation Front. The aim is to transform some of them into seaweed farmers. At a seaside village, we embarked in small boats to inspect the seaweed crops. Eventually, as we bobbed along on tourist-perfect seas, a new feeling began to replace seasickness. It was hope.

      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 17:23:47
      Beitrag Nr. 10.163 ()
      A new era of nuclear weapons
      Bush`s buildup begins with little debate in Congress
      James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
      Sunday, December 7, 2003
      ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ


      URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/07/MNG5Q3GH941.DTL


      Congress, with only a limited debate, has given the Bush administration a green light for the biggest revitalization of the country`s nuclear weapons program since the end of the Cold War, leaving many Democrats and even some hawkish Republicans seething.

      "This has been a good year," said Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which develops and manages the country`s nuclear weapons arsenal. "I`m pretty happy we essentially got what we wanted."

      Reversing a decade of restraint in nuclear weapons policy, Congress agreed to provide more than $6 billion for research, expansion and upgrades in the country`s nuclear capabilities. While Congress approved large sums to maintain the existing nuclear arsenal even during the Clinton years, this year`s increases will finance multiyear programs to design a new generation of warheads as well as more sophisticated missiles, bombers and re-entry vehicles to deliver them.

      "This is a fairly radical new way of thinking about things," Brooks said, adding that it amounted to "a more fundamental shift in the way we look at this than many people realize."

      That the change is indeed both "radical" and "fundamental" is about the only thing critics of the administration agree with.

      "It hasn`t been perceived as such, but this is a nuclear revival," said Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

      Deeply disturbing to critics on both sides of the political spectrum is how little public or congressional discussion has taken place, and how little detailed information the Bush administration has provided on its strategies and plans.

      "I`m totally offended by this administration," said Rep. Curt Weldon, R- Pa., a onetime White House ally on nuclear issues, and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "I happen to think they`re out of bounds on this. There`s an important sea change in the world, and we have no idea what our policy is.

      "It`s a major national scandal in the making," Weldon said in an interview with The Chronicle last week. "I`m totally frustrated."

      Yet for all their misgivings, influential Republicans like Weldon managed to impose only minuscule cuts of less than $20 million on the programs for new warhead development, leaving plans for jump-starting the U.S. nuclear arsenal and warhead production capabilities largely intact.

      "We know we`re getting rolled," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a vocal opponent of the new nuclear push. "All we did was give the president a sizable victory instead of a complete victory. They got everything they wanted as far as the significant issues. It is a huge ideological victory."

      "Nothing that happened in Congress stops (the Bush administration) from doing what they want to do at this point," said Robert Civiak, a nuclear physicist and former weapons analyst at the Office of Management of Budget. "The message that got across is that the country is ready for new kinds of nuclear weapons."

      Nuclear-weapons opponents argue that the country has little idea about the direction it is taking with such weapons of mass destruction.

      "There`s no debate on this at all," said Andrew Lichterman, program director of the Oakland-based Western States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit group that favors arms reductions. "These programs are not being questioned in the political mainstream at all."

      The Bush administration has argued that the new doctrine and new weapons are needed because the world has changed since the Cold War, when the United States deterred the Soviet Union from striking by developing a massive arsenal that promised complete annihilation. Now, the administration argues, there are new, regional menaces from such countries as North Korea and Iran.

      To deter those threats, the administration is seeking a new stockpile of both some Cold War-era warheads and new, smaller weapons that can be used for limited attacks and for destroying caches of weapons of mass destruction, especially in buried bunkers, without causing indiscriminate destruction and loss of life. It has also proposed a policy of possible pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states.

      A recent study entitled "Missiles of Empire: America`s 21st Century Global Legions," by Lichterman of the Western States Legal Foundation highlights not only the administration`s push for new kinds of warheads, but also the billions it is planning to spend on reducing the time it would take to launch a nuclear strike and on a new generation of missile re-entry vehicles, among other things. The re-entry vehicles would allow the military to steer warheads toward targets, even moving targets, entering the atmosphere from space.

      Even GOP hawks upset

      It is precisely those kinds of provocative new weapons capabilities -- at a time when the administration seeks to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction elsewhere -- that worries even hawkish Republicans.

      "We have more nuclear weapons now than we know what to do with,`` said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee`s energy and water subcommittee, which controls the nuclear weapons budget. "I`m concerned about our image in the world when we`re telling others not to build these things, and then we push these new programs."

      Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., a senior member of the Armed Services Committee who voted against funding some programs, argued in an interview, "We don`t need new weapons, and in fact we cause more harm than good in our relations with other countries and in our moral position on nuclear proliferation. I think that they`re almost obsolete. I`m not convinced that we have to have that capability."

      The Republican lawmakers conceded that their defiance had been more symbolic than substantive. Among other things, the administration succeeded in pushing through the repeal of the law banning the development of smaller, more usable low-yield warheads, and it got approval to begin research into advanced weapons concepts for the future. Congress also provided funding for study of a new "bunker-buster" warhead.

      A number of the new initiatives also bring the promise of increased spending in the future. For instance, Congress approved increasing the readiness of the Nevada Test Site, where weapons were tested underground until a ban was put in place in 1992. The NNSA has estimated it would cost as much as $83 million over three years to increase the level of readiness, and an additional $25 million to $30 million a year to sustain that level.

      Congress also approved with virtually no debate $320 million for manufacturing new "pits," the plutonium cores of warheads, almost $90 million more than last year. More than $135 million was appropriated for a program to keep tritium, a radioactive gas used to boost the power of warheads, ready for weapons use and another $265 million for a broad campaign to refurbish the facilities used to produce and maintain the nuclear arsenal.

      Republicans acknowledged that the few cuts they did make were achieved in the face of intense White House pressure -- and, as Brooks acknowledged, amounted to only "one-tenth of a percent of my budget." "I`m trying to send messages about priorities and what is important to the long-term future of this country," said Hobson. "We sent some messages, and the question will be whether they get them or not."

      The GOP critics, all advocates of a strong defense, also admitted that they did not attack the broader array of programs on the congressional floor.

      "I guess my feeling is that I would not want us to unilaterally disarm and get rid of our nuclear potential," said Hefley. "But at the same time I`m not comfortable with seeing us maintain all of the nuclear weapons arsenal. How can we in good conscience upgrade and develop new nuclear weapons?"

      `An insurance policy`

      Even Democrats who have been passionate in their criticisms of Bush`s policies admitted that they felt they had to vote for the bulk of the programs.

      Tauscher, when asked why she did not fight the billions of dollars in other budget items, such as rehabilitation of the warhead manufacturing capability and the development of the next generation of missiles and bombers, said some nuclear weaponry had to remain in the nation`s defensive arsenal.

      "As far as I`m concerned, it`s an insurance policy," she said.

      But even inside the administration, questions have been raised about the rationale for the new nuclear posture. The Pentagon, notably, is not pushing for the new warheads. A classified study conducted this summer by the Defense Science Board, which was leaked last month, stated, "Current (Department of Defense) structure provides neither clear requirements nor persuasive rationale for changing the nuclear stockpile."

      John Harvey, director of the policy planning staff at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a division of the Energy Department, remarked in an interview earlier this year, "We need to tell the military what`s possible, even if they haven`t asked the question yet. Sometimes the services don`t know the right questions to ask."

      Weldon said that the best he could do was wait and wage a bigger battle next year. He said he was trying to put together a group to study the entire arsenal and examine how it might be transformed to deal with the new threats.

      "The debate was on the smaller things this year," he said. "I think next year you`ll see that debate widen. Next year will be different, I assure you."

      The administration does not seem concerned. Asked if the lawmakers` small budget cuts or expressions of concern altered the administration`s direction, Brooks of the NNSA replied, "No, it doesn`t."

      E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com.

      ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 17:51:19
      Beitrag Nr. 10.164 ()
      Sunday, December 07, 2003
      If you read only one article today, read this one. Siehe da NYTimes #10159

      Jede Meldung ein Link:
      http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/


      "The Coalition Provisional Authority nominally has the job of "rebuilding" Iraq — using $20 billion or so of the $78 billion that recently flew out of America`s deficit-plagued coffers. But during the time the 101st has been in Mosul, three regional coalition authority directors have come and gone. Only recently, long after the people of Mosul elected their mayor and city council, was a civilian American governance official sent to the area. And, according to the division leadership, not a nickel of the $20 billion controlled by the provisional authority has reached them.

      - snip -

      "The super-defended Green Zone is the biggest, most secure American base camp in Iraq, but there is little connection between the troops in the field and the bottomless pit of planners and deciders who live inside the palace. Soldiers from the 101st tell me that they waited months for the Bechtel Corporation to unleash its corporate might in northern Iraq. `Then one of the Bechtel truck convoys got ambushed on the way up here three weeks ago, and one of the security guys got wounded,` an infantryman told me. `They abandoned their trucks on the spot and pulled out, and we haven`t seen them since.`"



      War News for December 7, 2003 Draft

      Bring `em on: One US soldier killed, two wounded in bomb ambush near Mosul.

      Bring `em on: Two Iraqi insurgents die attempting to mortar US positions in Baghdad.

      Bring `em on: Iraqi CDC member killed in rocket attack north of Baghdad.

      Bring `em on: Insurgent bomb kills Iraqi child near Baghdad.

      Bring `em on: Insurgent bomb derails freight train near Samarra.

      Rummy wants to lower Army readiness standards to conceal the damage from Bush`s War and his own failed leadership as Defense Secretary. "… Rumsfeld was responding to reports that four army divisions will be rated at the lowest levels of readiness for up to six months as they rest and refurbish equipment after punishing deployments… He said the standards the army now uses were formed during peacetime, and may not reflect the changed conditions the United States is in with major operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism." If Rumsfeld doesn`t understand the mechanics of the Unit Status Reporting system, he is unfit to be Secretary of Defense. The USR system is an objective evaluation of a unit`s personnel, training, equipment and logistics posture measured against wartime contingency requirements. USRs are developed by company and battalion commanders, and validated by each higher echelon of command. It`s not an abstract "peacetime" evaluation. This is just another example of Team Bush moving the goalposts to avoid accountability for their own miserable failures. Secretary Rumsfeld is a no-go at this station.

      Army faces massive shortage of Military Police soldiers.

      US troops suffer from parasitic skin disease.

      Soldier sounds off because Operation Jive Turkey caused troops to eat MREs on Thanksgiving. (Last letter on this page.)

      Tax cuts trump flak jackets.

      Field soldiers say Bremer`s poorly administered reconstruction funds are being used to finance attacks against US troops.

      US applies lessons learned from 50 years of successful Israeli counterinsurgency operations. " Writing in the July issue of Army magazine, an American brigadier general said American officers had recently traveled to Israel to hear about lessons learned from recent fighting there."

      Tough tactics piss off Iraqis.

      International funds for Iraq reconstruction fall short of pledges. "Some countries similarly changed plans because of growing concerns about the political stability and the security of Iraq; some say they will donate money once the trust fund is set up; some, intent on seeing a greater United Nations role in Iraq, are reluctant to make grants during the American-led occupation. `The problem with cash is that you don`t know where it`s going to end up,` said an official with a donor country. `Who gets to draw this money down? The only contracts awarded for Iraq so far have been awarded by the Pentagon.`"

      Commentary

      Opinion: Bushies` tall tales undermine their credibility.

      Casualty Reports

      Local story: North Dakota soldier wounded in Iraq.

      Local story: New York soldier wounded in Iraq.





      # posted by yankeedoodle : 1:47 AM
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 17:52:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.165 ()
      December 7, 2003
      OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
      A Million Miles From the Green Zone to the Front Lines
      By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV

      MOSUL, Iraq

      Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the Army`s 101st Airborne Division, has a large office on the second floor of what was once Saddam Hussein`s northernmost palace in Mosul. He`s got a desk and some chairs and a G.I. cot in an ornate room with marble floors and a tent-like ceiling fashioned from a latticework of wooden beading. The palace is yet another of Saddam Hussein`s many-columned, Mussolini-style monsters, faced with the dun-colored polished stone and multihued marble he favored. The entire division staff is billeted in two bedrooms upstairs and in a cavernous marble basement that appears to have been a sort of spa/bunker.

      The other day I told General Petraeus about a young specialist fourth class I had met while waiting for a military flight out of Baghdad. The specialist was a college student from Iowa whose National Guard unit had been called up for the war. He had told me about a prolonged firefight that took place the week before, outside Camp Anaconda on the outskirts of the city of Balad, 40 miles from Baghdad.

      "We began taking small arms fire about 8 a.m., from Abu Shakur, the village just north of the base camp`s gate," the specialist told me. "Our guys responded with small arms and then mortars. Someone on patrol outside the wire got wounded, and they sent Bradley Fighting Vehicles out, and they hit the Bradleys pretty hard, and by 10 a.m., they were firing 155-millimeter howitzers, and attack helicopters were firing missiles into the village, and you could see tracers and smoke everywhere.

      "I had just gotten off a night shift, and I was sitting outside my tent about 100 meters from the gate in my pajamas reading a book. Right near me, guys were doing laundry and standing in line for chow. I was sitting there thinking: `Have we had wars like this before? Shouldn`t we drop everything and help? I mean, we were spectators! What kind of war is this, sir?` "

      General Petraeus, who graduated from West Point in 1974, just in time to witness the ignominious end to the war in Vietnam, didn`t say anything. But slowly, and it seemed, unconsciously, his head began to nod, and his mind seemed far, far away. It seemed clear he knew the answer: yes, specialist, we have had wars like this before.

      Commanding generals have had lavishly appointed offices before, as well. My grandfather, Gen. Lucian K. Truscott Jr., occupied the Borghese Palace when his VI Corps swept into Rome in 1943. His aide kept a record of the meals prepared for him by his three Chinese cooks, while every day dozens — and on some days, hundreds — of his soldiers perished on the front lines at Anzio, only a few miles away from his villa on the beach.

      So there may be nothing new about this war and the way we are fighting it — with troops on day and night patrols from base camps being hit by a nameless, faceless enemy they cannot see and whose language they do not speak. However, the disconnect between the marbled hallways of the Coalition Provisional Authority palaces in Baghdad and the grubby camp in central Mosul where I spent last week as a guest of Bravo Company, First Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, is profound, and perhaps unprecedented.

      An colonel in Baghdad (who will go nameless here for obvious reasons) told me just after I arrived that senior Army officers feel every order they receive is delivered with next November`s election in mind, so there is little doubt at and near the top about who is really being used for what over here. The resentment in the ranks toward the civilian leadership in Baghdad and back in Washington is palpable. Another officer described the two camps, military and civilian, inhabiting the heavily fortified, gold-leafed presidential palace inside the so-called Green Zone in Baghdad, as "a divorced couple who won`t leave the house."

      Meanwhile in Mosul, the troops of Bravo Company bunker down amid smells of diesel fuel and burning trash and rotting vegetables and dishwater and human waste from open sewers running though the maze of stone and mud alleyways in the Old City across the street. Bravo Company`s area of operations would be an assault on the senses even without the nightly rattle of AK-47 fire in the nearby streets, and the two rocket-propelled grenade rounds fired at the soldiers a couple of weeks ago.

      It is difficult enough for the 120 or so men of Bravo Company to patrol their overcrowded sector of this city of maybe two million people and keep its streets safe and free of crime. But from the first day they arrived in Mosul, Bravo Company and the rest of the 101st Airborne Division were saddled with dozens of other missions, all of them distinctly nonmilitary, and most of them made necessary by the failure of civilian leaders in Washington and Baghdad to prepare for the occupation of Iraq.

      The 101st entered Mosul on April 22 to find the city`s businesses, civil ministries and utilities looted and its people rioting in the streets. By May 5, the soldiers had supervised elections for mayor and city council. On May 11, they oversaw the signing of harvest accords and the division of wheat profits among the region`s frequently warring factions of Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen and Assyrians. On May 14, a company commander of Alpha Company, Third Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment of the 101st re-opened the Syrian border for trade, and by May 18, soldiers had largely restored the flow of automobile gas and cooking propane, shortages of which had been causing riots.

      Since that time, soldiers from the 101st have overseen tens of millions of dollars worth of reconstruction projects: drilling wells for villages that had never had their own water supply; rebuilding playgrounds and schools; repairing outdated and broken electrical systems; installing satellite equipment needed to get the regional phone system up and running; restoring the city`s water works; repairing sewers and in some cases installing sewage systems in neighborhoods that had never had them; policing, cleaning and reorganizing the ancient marketplace in the Old City; setting up a de facto social security system to provide "retirement" pay to the 110,000 former Iraqi soldiers in the area; screening and, in most cases, putting back to work most of the former Baath Party members who fled their jobs at the beginning of the war.

      So many civil projects were reported on at a recent battle update briefing I attended that staff officers sometimes sounded more like board members of a multinational corporation than the combat-hardened infantry soldiers they are.

      Why were the soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division — who were trained to clean latrines but not to build them — given the daunting task of making the cities and villages of northern Iraq work again? Because when they were ordered 300 miles north of Baghdad after the city fell, there was no one else around to do it. Even today, seven months later, it is still largely the job of the soldiers in Bravo Company and the other units of the 101st to make the system work in Mosul and its outlying provinces.

      The Coalition Provisional Authority nominally has the job of "rebuilding" Iraq — using $20 billion or so of the $78 billion that recently flew out of America`s deficit-plagued coffers. But during the time the 101st has been in Mosul, three regional coalition authority directors have come and gone. Only recently, long after the people of Mosul elected their mayor and city council, was a civilian American governance official sent to the area. And, according to the division leadership, not a nickel of the $20 billion controlled by the provisional authority has reached them.

      "First they want a planning contractor to come in here, and even that step takes weeks to get approved," one officer in Mosul complained of the civilian leadership. "The planners were up here for months doing assessments, and then more weeks go by because everything has to be approved by Baghdad. If we sat around waiting for the C.P.A. and its civilian contractors to do it, we still wouldn`t have electricity and running water in Mosul, so we just took our own funds and our engineers and infantry muscle and did it ourselves. We didn`t have the option of waiting on the guys in the Green Zone."

      But the guys in the Green Zone seem to have plenty of time on their hands. The place is something to behold, surrounded on one side by the heavily patrolled Tigris River, and on the three others by a 15-foot-high concrete wall backed by several rows of concertina razor wire and a maze of lesser concrete barriers. There`s only one way in and out, through a heavily fortified checkpoint near the Jumhiriya Bridge guarded by tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles from the First Armored Division and an invisible array of British commando teams. More tanks guard key intersections inside the walls, machine gun towers line the wide boulevards, snipers man firing positions atop palaces great and small.

      In all, hundreds of uniformed soldiers and heavily armed civilian security guards stand watch all day, every day over a display of grim garishness that would have given Liberace nightmares. If you`re curious about how your tax dollars are being spent in Baghdad, you should get one of the many colonels strolling about the Green Zone to take you on a tour of the rebuilt duck pond across the road from the marble and gold-leafed palace serving as headquarters of an Army brigade. As I went to sleep one night a couple of weeks ago in the Green Zone, listening to the gurgle of the duck pond fountain and the comforting roar of Black Hawk helicopters patrolling overhead, it occurred to me that it was the safest night I`ve spent in about 25 years.

      Which was a blessing for me, but a curse on the war effort. The super-defended Green Zone is the biggest, most secure American base camp in Iraq, but there is little connection between the troops in the field and the bottomless pit of planners and deciders who live inside the palace. Soldiers from the 101st tell me that they waited months for the Bechtel Corporation to unleash its corporate might in northern Iraq. "Then one of the Bechtel truck convoys got ambushed on the way up here three weeks ago, and one of the security guys got wounded," an infantryman told me. "They abandoned their trucks on the spot and pulled out, and we haven`t seen them since."

      That event occurred in November, the deadliest month of the war for the 101st, which had more than 20 of its soldiers killed in guerrilla attacks. Not given the option of abandoning the job and pulling out when the bullets start flying, soldiers of the 101st have stepped up their defensive patrols to around 250 a day and undertaken an aggressive campaign of cordon and search missions aimed at enemy strongholds in central Mosul and the outlying villages to the south near the Syrian border. Incidents involving attacks on troops with small arms and improvised explosive devices have been cut from more than 20 a day to fewer than 10. And last week the division took 107 enemy prisoners in a series of attacks on enemy strongholds in its area.

      Still, Mosul and the rest of northern Iraq — an enormous area stretching from the flat desert at the Syrian border on the southwest to the mountainous border with Iran on the northeast — is a very dangerous place. Three 101st soldiers have been killed since I arrived, two by small arms and one by mortars. Three weeks ago, 17 soldiers flying home for leave were killed when an attack with rocket-propelled grenades took down two Black Hawk helicopters.

      "It`s really not helpful when people down in Baghdad and politicians back in Washington refer to the `disorganized and ineffective` enemy we supposedly face," said one young officer, as we walked out of a battalion battle briefing that had been concerned largely with the tactics of an enemy force that is clearly well organized and very, very effective. After spending more than a week with the soldiers of Bravo Company, I know that they resent not only the inaccuracy of such statements, but the implication that soldiers facing a disorganized and ineffective enemy have an easy job.

      No matter what you call this stage of the conflict in Iraq — the soldiers call it a guerrilla war while politicians back home often refer to it misleadingly and inaccurately as part of the amorphous "war on terror" — it is without a doubt a nasty, deadly war. And the people doing the fighting are soldiers, not the civilian employees of Kellogg, Brown & Root, or the officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or the visiting bigwigs from the Defense Department.

      The troops in Bravo Company don`t pay much attention to the rear-guard political wars being waged back in Washington, but they loved President Bush`s quick visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving. While it was clearly a political stunt, they were quick to credit the risks he took. I can confirm that flying in and out of Baghdad — even at night, when it`s safest — is not for the faint of heart. A C-130 on approach takes a nervous, dodgy route, banking this way and that, gaining and losing altitude. Hanging onto one of those web-seats by only a seat belt (no shoulder harnesses), you`re nearly upside down half the time — it would feel like the ultimate roller-coaster ride, except it`s very much for real.

      When Bravo Company troops roll out of the rack at 2 a.m. for street patrols, they walk the broad boulevards and narrow alleyways spread out as if they`re walking a jungle trail — wheeling to the rear, sideways, back to the front; their eyes searching doorways, alleys, windows, rooftops, passing cars, even donkey carts — trying to keep one another alive for another day, another week, another month, whatever it takes to get home.

      Meanwhile, two soldiers armed with M-4 carbines and fearsome M-249 Saws machine guns stand guard inside concrete and sandbag bunkers atop the Bravo Company camp`s roof, while squads of soldiers patrol alleys with no names in Mosul`s Old City, and everyone prays.


      Lucian K. Truscott IV, a 1969 graduate of West Point, is a novelist and screenwriter.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 18:19:57
      Beitrag Nr. 10.166 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 19:26:08
      Beitrag Nr. 10.167 ()
      Friday, December 05, 2003
      Restructuring Iraq`s Foreign Debt - Let`s Hope This "Baker Plan" Is More Successful!
      Printable PDF Version
      http://bloodbankers.typepad.com/submerging_markets/restructu…



      On December 5, 2003, President George W. Bush announced that he is appointing James A. Baker III to
      to be his “debt envoy,” in charge of renegotiating Iraq’s huge foreign debt. To many, this is a welcome move -- Baker appears to be a savvy, affable fellow with strong diplomatic skills and multilateralist inclinations, which this administration sorely needs. And Iraq’s debt now stands at $128-$200 billion or more, depending on whose claims are recognized. (See below.) Since this is at least several times Iraq`s entire national income, a debt restructuring is certainly long over due.

      http://bloodbankers.typepad.com/submerging_markets/
      James S. Henry ist Editor dieser Seite.
      Editorial Reviews
      About the Author
      Former Chief Economist for McKinsey & Co. and VP Strategy for IBM/Lotus, James S. Henry has written for many publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and U.S. News & World Report. One of the original "Nader`s Raiders," he is founder and managing director of the Sag Harbor Group, a strategy consulting firm with a special focus on technology strategy and business development. He has managed projects on a wide variety of competitive strategy issues for many prominent global companies. His clients have included AT&T, Chase Manhattan, GE, GM, IBM, Lucent, Merrill Lynch, the Samsung Group (Korea), Xerox, the Joint Caribbean Task Force for Scotland Yard and the FBI, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Swedish Power Board, and the government of Extremadura (Spain).
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 19:31:28
      Beitrag Nr. 10.168 ()
      Sunday Herald - 07 December 2003
      Backward Christian Soldiers
      Our civilisation is in grave danger, warns Iain Macwhirter. But the threat is not terrorism, eugenics or GM crops. The West’s future is being undermined by leaders whose guiding light is exactly what modern, rational politics was supposed to have blown out long ago: religion


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      More than two hundred years after the Scottish Englightement philosopher David Hume first tried to drive religion out of human affairs, could it be that God is now staging a Millennial comeback? Political scientists claim the world is polarising into rival civilisations, based on Christianity and Islam, and a century after Charles Darwin destroyed the Creation myth, we have a US President who seems to believe the Bible is the literal truth. On top of it all, one of the least religious countries in the world, Britain, has a deeply religious leader in Downing Street.
      “We don’t do God,” Alastair Campbell famously told an American press conference at the height of the Iraq war. Well he may not, but his former boss certainly does. Now Campbell has gone, there could be a real question about who is to keep Blair’s messianic instincts in check. The PM’s preoccupation with the divine seemed to have caused his spin-doctors increasing difficulty in the months before Campbell left the circle of the elect. On one occasion, Number 10 political staff had to stop the PM going on live television to bless the troops going to Iraq.

      Sir Peter Stothard, former editor of The Times, spent 30 days with the Prime Minister at the height of the Iraq crisis. He says Blair simply can’t function if he doesn’t worship regularly. He loses all confidence and conviction if he is detached from his hotline to the divine – so he keeps God on hand at all times.

      Blair’s faith inspires his politics and his approach to world affairs in a way we haven’t seen in this country for generations. British political culture was predominantly secular throughout the last century. Many leaders have been Christians, like the late John Smith whom Blair succeeded, but their faith has always been a private affair.

      Blair makes no secret of his conviction. He is ostentatiously spiritual and seems to positively relish being filmed in church. He is almost certainly the most devout prime minister since Gladstone, and has the Bible with him at all times.

      The thesis of The Power And The Glory, a new BBC documentary presented by Michael Buerk, is that this marriage of faith and politics is essentially benign. In America and Britain, politics may be taking on an increasingly religious character, but we aren’t in danger of becoming a theocracy. Buerk insists nobody on either side of the Atlantic wishes to see politics subsumed by religion. Even Bible-thumping evangelists like Pat Buchanan of the US Christian Coalition do not want government to be placed in the hands of clerics.




      Nor, indeed, is it fair to portray Blair as a religious fundamentalist. The Prime Minister outraged churchmen such as the late Cardinal Winning by insisting on a woman’s right to choose abortion. He has supported Sunday trading, gay marriages and the abolition of Section 2A on the teaching of homosexuality in schools. He is a liberal Christian.

      Neverthelesss, non-believers in Britain cannot help but find this new spiritual orientation of Western political leadership alarming, especially at a time of heightened international conflict. Messianic leaders who believe they are guided by the hand of God have an alarming habit of regarding their own actions as being, if not infallible, then at least divinely ordained.

      Blair remains a man motivated by an apocalyptic faith and his best friend, the Republican President George W Bush, is the nearest we have seen to a fundamentalist in the White House. Bush has been under the influence of the crackpot TV evangelism that is so peculiar to America. He is a born again, an ex-drinker, with an absolute devotion to Biblical law.

      It isn’t known whether Blair and Bush actually bent the knee together in prayer at their summits in Camp David – a proposition Jeremy Paxman cheekily put to the PM in a TV debate on Iraq earlier this year – but they have certainly worshipped together. So the coalition of the willing is also a coalition of the will of God. Prime Minister and President see themselves as fighting to spread Christian principles across the globe. It is, as Bush put it, a “crusade” to root out evil and spread the light.

      When asked to whom he would answer for the deaths of British soldiers in Iraq, Blair replied that it would be not to parliament or history or even the people, but to “my Maker”. This reference to a higher authority is disturbing, particularly in our political system, where there is an inherent danger of elective dictatorship. It doesn’t do to let the hand of God get too close to the levers of power.

      Unlike America, where the President is enmeshed in a complex machinery of checks and balances, our Prime Minister exercises the residual powers of the Crown, importantly over war. A prime minister can more or less do what he likes, especially if he or she has the kind of exaggerated majority delivered by the first-past-the-post electoral system. If Britain had had proportional representation, and the number of seats in the House of Commons reflected Labour’s share of the vote, we would almost certainly not have gone to war in March.

      Tony Blair is in a position to directly implement God’s will as he sees it. But divine inspiration isn’t always the best guide to dealing with complex political situations. It tends to reductionism – seeing everything in crude terms of good and evil. Religion also inclines its followers to the ways of sacrifice, which in wartime generally means the sacrifice of the lives of others.

      But the real question is: why is this happening at all? Why in this secular age, when little more than 10% of British people go to church, is Number 10 inhabited by an avowedly religious politician? Why are so many of Blair’s New Labour apostles – like David Blunkett, Jack Straw and Estelle Morris – devout Christians, when most Labour voters would run a mile rather than go to church?

      The Church seems to be invading domestic politics on both sides of the Atlantic. Bush insists on his Cabinet secretaries going to Bible class and opens meetings with prayers. He has also handed over much US policy on welfare to religious groups. Here, Blair has set up a special working party in the home office, charged with injecting religious ideas into Whitehall.

      Even in Scotland, since devolution, the Church seems to be exerting an increasing influence over secular affairs. Jack McConnell has rowed back from plans to merge Catholic and non-Catholic schools on single campuses, has abandoned plans for sex clinics in schools giving advice on contraception and passed the buck on “gay marriage” by handing civil partnership legislation to Westminster under a Sewell motion. After the row over Section 2A, the Catholic church seems to have an effective veto on large areas of Scottish public policy.

      The Scottish Executive is intensely reluctant to offend the moral majority. Except that there isn’t one. Indeed, according to Professor Steve Bruce of Aberdeen University, Scotland can no longer be called a Christian nation.

      There may be half a million nominal Catholics in Scotland, but only a small proportion attends mass. And the Kirk’s congregation has dwindled so radically that it faces a financial crisis, forcing it to look at ways of using churches for purposes other than worship. Attendance for both main churches in Scotland has plummeted since Blair came to power in 1997.




      So why does religion remain so influential? Why do Christians, apparently, make such successful politicians? Could it be that having faith gives them some kind of ‘edge’ in the political race – something that gives religious politicians the resilience and fortitude to put up with the rough treatment routinely meted out to people in public life?

      Our own moral double standards may have something to do with it. Divorce, adultery, promiscuity and cohabitation are the defining features of modern moral life. Yet somehow, especially in America, we expect our leaders to be immune from it all. It is increasingly difficult for most people to enter public life at all because of the relentless intrusion into their private lives. We require our leaders to be ‘hyper-normal’ – that is, conforming to a stereotype of moral rectitude which has little to do with how we lead our own lives.

      But that’s not the only political benefit of God-bothering. There is evidence that faith can be an effective bulwark against stress. When you walk with God, you never walk alone. If you see your life as a real isation on earth of the will of a supreme deity, it makes temporal decision-making that much easier. Suddenly, it’s not just your own responsibility, it’s your calling.

      It is also the case that, even in this Godless age, a lot of people still believe in God. Seven in 10 Britons declared themselves to be Christian in the last census. Three out of four adults in Britain say they believe in some sort of deity – a higher power, beyond human comprehension, which influences their lives.

      Empty pews may merely indicate that people have become religious in a different way. Certainly, the proliferation of new age cults since the 1960s, from Scientology to the Kabbalah, suggests there is a latent spirituality in many of us – a propensity to the divine – which seeks expression. It may be that voters respond well to someone, like Tony Blair, who has the courage to believe.

      This is something left-wing intellectuals find difficult. They tend to be atheist, and are inclined to disparage all faith as superstition. This is why many Labour party members find the PM’s religiosity – as lampooned in Private Eye’s “St Albion’s Parish News” – to be cringe-making. Most on the left believed God expired sometime during the 20th century, under the sustained assault of modernism, materialism and marxism. Which makes it all the more remarkable that the most successful Labour leader in history should be a Christian.




      The left’s hostility to the cloth goes back at least to the days of the first world war, when Bishops told soldiers in the trenches that it was God’s will that they fight for king and country. My own grandfather, a church elder, was thrown out of the Kirk during that war for being a pacifist, something that is hard to imagine happening today.

      The marxist claim that religion was an essentially reactionary force – “the opium of the masses” – influenced many on the left who were never card-carrying communists. But God has proved to be rather more enduring than Marx. The Church is back stronger than ever in Eastern Europe since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Indeed, in many former Warsaw Pact countries, such as Poland, the Church was key to the overthrow of communism.

      Humanism, which seemed to be the natural successor to religion in the 20th century, has not managed to break Christianity’s monopoly on the spiritual. The Church still seems to hold sway over the ‘rites of passage’ ceremonies – like marriage and funerals. For all the frenetic eclecticism of new age spiritual movements, no single ‘alternative’ religion has emerged to challenge Christianity. The nearest is probably Zen Buddhism, which was brought to the West in the 1950s and 60s by writers like Alan Watts and Christmas Humphries, and has remained the religion of Bohemians ever since.

      So God is not dead. Indeed some political scientists argue that religion is about to make a very big come-back on the world stage. According to the American political scientist, Samuel P Huntington, the divisions of the Cold War era are likely to be replaced by a clash of civilisations; a global schism between an essentially Christian West and Islam. This was written well before the events of September 11, but it has become a kind of accepted wisdom since the war against al-Qaeda began after the toppling of the twin towers. In the Clash Of Fundamentalisms, the marxist writer Tariq Ali argues that world peace is endangered by a new clash of religious orthodoxies.

      So for good or ill, the hand of God still seems to be shaping world affairs. David Hume was in no doubt about its malign effect. As he remarked to James Boswell: “It requires great goodness of disposition to withstand the baleful effects of Christianity”.




      The Power And The Glory is on BBC1, Tuesday, at 10.35pm



      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



      Copyright © 2003 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 19:39:40
      Beitrag Nr. 10.169 ()
      A hard hitting special report into the "war on terror"
      Award winning journalist John Pilger

      Breaking The Silence

      Windows Media Broadband Here: ITV 51 min.
      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/35_mb_pilger…

      Kein Breitband:
      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4851.htm
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 19:45:11
      Beitrag Nr. 10.170 ()
      Bin Laden`s Iraq Plans
      By Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh, Newsweek

      http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002197.asp?0cv=KB10
      During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, three senior Qaeda representatives allegedly held a secret meeting in Afghanistan with two top Taliban commanders.

      THE CONFAB TOOK PLACE in mid-November in the remote, Taliban-controlled mountains of Khowst province near the Pakistan border, a region where Al Qaeda has found it easy to operate--frequently even using satellite phones despite U.S. surveillance.
      At that meeting, according to Taliban sources, Osama bin Laden`s men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan`s ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.

      All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said. Why? Because the terror chieftain and his top lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq and neighboring countries such as Turkey, according to Taliban sources who complain that their own movement will suffer. (Though certainly not as much as Washington would like: last week Taliban guerrillas killed a U.N. census worker in an ambush, and a rocket struck near the U.S. Embassy in Kabul only hours after a visit by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.) Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the "American crusaders" and that the Iraqi insurgency has been "100 percent successful so far," according to a Taliban participant at the mid-November meeting who goes by the nom de guerre Sharafullah.

      Fluent in Arabic, Sharafullah tells NEWSWEEK he acted as the meeting`s official translator. He has proved to be a reliable source in previous stories. Prior to 9/11, he was Mullah Omar`s translator in face-to-face meetings with bin Laden. And Sharafullah has translated correspondence between the two leaders. Another Taliban source separately confirmed that the meeting occurred, and he corroborated other parts of Sharafullah`s account.

      If true, bin Laden`s shift of focus could be unsettling news for George W. Bush. The president is eager to quell the Iraqi insurgency and establish a democratic, stable Iraq as he heads into the 2004 re-election campaign. Until now, the attacks on Americans and other Coalition members have come mainly from local Saddam loyalists rather than an influx of foreign jihadists. But if the Taliban sources are correct, bin Laden may be aiming to help turn Iraq into "the central front" in the war on terror. That is how Bush himself described Iraq in a September speech, when he said, "We are fighting that enemy [there] today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets." But the president may be getting more than he bargained for. With 79 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq in November--far more than in any previous month--many Democrats now see Bush`s troubles in Iraq as the central front in their campaign to unseat him.

      Despite bin Laden`s apparently fresh interest in Iraq, sources in the region say there remains scant evidence that he had links to Saddam before the war. And U.S. officials who have sought to establish those links suggest now that Al Qaeda doesn`t have substantial resources to divert to Iraq. "There just doesn`t seem to be evidence of that," says a U.S. intel official. Asked if Washington believes the Ramadan meeting took place, CIA spokesman William Harlow declined to comment.

      Sharafullah described the Qaeda-Taliban meeting while sitting down openly with a NEWSWEEK reporter at a tea shop in Peshawar`s Kissakhani bazaar. That`s not unusual: Afghan Taliban officials often move freely in Pakistani cities despite President Pervez Musharraf`s vows to crack down. Even Mullah Omar himself, who has been sought by U.S. forces for two years, may be operating inside Pakistan, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told NEWSWEEK in an interview on Nov. 28. "Mullah Omar was spotted praying in a mosque in Quetta 10 days ago," Karzai said. "This is the first time I have said this publicly." Karzai alleged that Taliban rebels were getting support in Pakistan--Quetta has become their main base, he said--and he asked Musharraf to stop Pakistani Islamic groups from providing sanctuary. ("It is a lie that Mullah Omar is in Pakistan," retorted Pakistan Information Minister Sheik Rashid Ahmed.)

      Sharafullah, smartly dressed in a shalwar kameez, wool sweater and black boots, said bin Laden was represented at the Ramadan meeting by three Arabs in their mid-40s who were armed with new Kalashnikovs and bedecked in hand grenades. The Arabs informed Mullah Omar`s two representatives--one a former cabinet minister and the other a senior Taliban military commander--that bin Laden believed Al Qaeda had to widen the scope of its anti-infidel efforts as new opportunities arose. According to Sharafullah, the Qaeda representatives quoted bin Laden as saying, "The spilling of American blood is easy in Iraq. The Americans are drowning in deep, rising water." Many Qaeda men are keen to go to Iraq, bin Laden`s delegates at the meeting allegedly added, and they again quoted "the sheik" as saying: "I`m giving men who are thirsty a chance to drink deeply."

      Bin Laden, they said, had also decided to "reorganize the distribution of funding" by reducing Al Qaeda`s monthly payment to the Afghan resistance from $3 million to $1.5 million, according to Sharafullah. Bin Laden`s men pointed out that raising and distributing funds has been complicated by the U.S. crackdown on jihadi charitable foundations, bank accounts of terror-related organizations and money transfers. Nonetheless, bin Laden wanted to "assure" the Afghan resistance that it would receive the promised amount. "We will never leave you alone," the terror chief allegedly said through his representatives.

      Judging from bin Laden`s taped messages over the years, his strategy has always been to sap America`s will and drive U.S. troops out of Arab lands altogether. While it remains unclear how well bin Laden is still able to direct or coordinate his far-flung cells and franchises, the most recent audiotaped message attributed to him, in October, calls on young Muslims to fight a holy war in Iraq. The New York Times reported Saturday that Qaeda operatives are also heading to Iraq from Europe. Some key Taliban sources claim there are more than 1,000 Qaeda fighters, military trainers and advisers who work closely with the Afghan resistance. These sources say at least one third of these Qaeda militants are now being sent to the Mideast. Mohammad Amir, a 32-year-old Taliban intelligence agent in Pakistan, says that of some 350 Qaeda fighters who operated out of Waziristan, an unregulated tribal area of Pakistan, nearly one half have already pulled out and headed for Iraq and neighboring countries.

      The Taliban sources paint a portrait of a Qaeda network that has found new ways to operate, despite a U.S. dragnet in Central and South Asia. U.S. officials adamantly deny they have skimped on resources--intelligence or military--in that region. But there is evidence that the diversion of U.S. attention to Iraq has given Al Qaeda some breathing room, and that U.S. dependence on Pakistani troops and Afghan warlords is proving inadequate, perhaps even counter-productive, against the terror network. Over the past year, NEWSWEEK has learned, the CIA and British intelligence have been at odds over how badly the Taliban and Al Qaeda were damaged in the region. "The British were more prone to say the Taliban and Al Qaeda were coming back," says a U.S. official who is privy to intel discussions, and who believes the Bush administration downplayed the threat in order to switch its focus to Iraq.

      Many Qaeda operatives appear to be traveling to the Mideast via the long, overland route through Iran. But the Bush administration, preoccupied with Iraq, has been reluctant to take a harder line toward Iran over its role as a terrorist haven. "The Iranians and some Arab countries like Syria are breathing easier because the United States is bogged down in Iraq," says one --Arab ambassador to Washington. Abdullah Ramezanzadeh, an Iranian government spokesman, says Tehran is arresting Qaeda suspects, but he notes that "before we consider America`s best interests, we have to consider our own people`s interests."

      Iran is an ideal transit station for Al Qaeda because it borders Afghanistan and Pakistan to its west and Iraq and Turkey to its east. Abdul Alkozai, a portly, black-turbaned Taliban intelligence and logistical officer along the Pakistani-Afghan border, says that two months ago bin Laden ordered 24 Qaeda-affiliated Turkish fighters to withdraw from Waziristan and head home to Turkey, also through Iran. Bin Laden has also dispatched some of his key senior aides to the Iraqi front over the past months. Three months ago he ordered Abdel Hadi al Iraqi, an Iraqi Baathist who fell out with Saddam in the 1980s and later became a Qaeda training-camp commander in Khowst, to leave bin Laden`s hideout in northeastern Afghanistan and head to Iraq, Taliban sources say.

      Mullah omar has been dismayed by the apparent redirection of Qaeda forces, these same sources say. According to Sharafullah, bin Laden`s representatives at the November meeting counseled the Taliban to unite the Afghan resistance. The Qaeda leader urged the Taliban to coordinate with the other main anti-U.S. and anti-Karzai guerrilla outfits, which are run by Afghan warlords Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Saed Akbar Agha.

      Mullah Omar`s official spokesman, Hamid Agha, denied to NEWSWEEK in a satellite-telephone interview that the Taliban had financial or military problems. "We have enough money to fund our resistance," he said from an undisclosed location. The resurgent Taliban say they have been buoyed by an influx of hundreds of former Taliban fighters into their ranks over the past year. Many have rejoined because local warlords allied with U.S. forces and Karzai have persecuted them in their villages, both Taliban and U.S. intel sources say. "These repressive, pro-American warlords have been our best recruiting tool," says Rahman Hotaki, a former Transport Ministry official and now a Taliban operative in Waziristan. "Warlords are pushing people to leave the warmth of their blankets at home and join us in our caves." Hotaki admits that the departure of Qaeda trainers will hurt the Taliban. "We need more, not fewer, Qaeda experts, especially in explosives and other military technologies," he says. "We can`t fight without foreign financial support." But if bin Laden`s Taliban allies are to be believed, the Qaeda leader may no longer be sympathetic to their entreaties. It appears that he, like his mortal enemy George W. Bush, may be seeking to make Iraq center stage in the war on terror.

      With Zahid Hussain in Islamabad and Babak Dehghanpisheh in Iran



      © 2003 Newsweek, Inc.

      MSNBC Terms, Conditions and Privacy ©2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 20:05:20
      Beitrag Nr. 10.171 ()
      The Shiite Hit List
      A warning went out, but it didn’t stop an ayatollah’s assassination. Who done it, and who might be next?

      By Babak Dehghanpisheh
      NEWSWEEK
      http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002230.asp

      Dec. 15 issue — Abdul Karim al Inizi tried to sound a warning. Shortly after he learned that an assassination plot was being hatched, he sent letters to every senior cleric in Najaf, the holiest city of Shiite Islam. As head of the Dawa-Iraq Organization`s political bureau, Inizi was a well-known figure in the city, not just some faceless crank. Spokesmen for several of the clerics say they got the warning--but their precautions weren`t good
      enough. The next day a massive car bomb exploded outside the Imam Ali Mosque after Friday services, killing Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir al Hakim and 89 bystanders in what remains the deadliest act of terror since the occupation began. That was in August. A black banner near the scene still promises revenge, revenge--no matter how long it takes!
      INIZI SAYS he knows exactly who ordered the attack: a former colonel in Saddam Hussein’s secret police, the Mukhabarat. After the bombing, the officer promptly vanished from his Baghdad home, together with his wife and children. Inizi refuses to divulge the man’s name, saying only that Dawa is on his trail. The group’s leaders haven’t shared their leads with the Coalition, Inizi says: they want the U.S. forces out of Iraq—the sooner, the better. Hakim himself, in the early days of the occupation, had staked out a fairly accommodating position toward the Americans. But having spent more than a decade in exile as a favored guest of the Iranian government, he was hardly considered an American stooge.
      Then why would the Baathists want Hakim dead? Perhaps to turn Iraq’s Shiite majority against itself and make the country ungovernable. The risk frightens many Shiite leaders. From outside, Iraq’s Shiites may look like one cohesive group, but from inside they’re a seething tangle of resentments and rivalries over money, power and prestige. Even the country’s highest-ranking cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has less-than-absolute authority, despite the headaches he has given the Americans lately with demands for direct elections to create a new government. The Iranian-born Sistani, 73, shares power in Najaf with three other grand ayatollahs, who all seem convinced that religion should have only a very limited role in politics.
      Some prominent Shiites in Iraq disagree vehemently. One of the most ambitious is a youthful Iraqi-born cleric named Moqtada Sadr, who maintains a large private militia, the Mahdi Army, and regularly preaches fire-and-brimstone anti-U.S. sermons in Al Kufah, just outside Najaf. The grudges between Sadr’s and Sistani’s followers date back many years. Even so, the two men’s representatives made a deal immediately after the regime’s collapse to share the pulpit at Karbala’s Imam Hussein Mosque, preaching there on alternate Fridays. Their truce lasted until August, when Sistani’s man barred Sadr’s representative from the mosque.
      Things deteriorated from there. On Oct. 10, Sadr announced he was forming a national government. No one paid much attention. You can’t run a government without cash, and Sadr didn’t have it. Three nights later his followers fanned out across Karbala, taking over the post office and the local TV station. Then a group of about 50 armed men advanced toward the city’s two monumental shrines, where they were met by tribal security forces and townspeople loyal to Sistani. The vast courtyard between the shrines was filled with rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 fire.
      Iraqi police and Coalition forces sealed the city, fearing an influx of Sadr reinforcements. The fighting continued all night, and members of both camps say a third group joined in—probably Baathists, they say. By morning, 19 Iraqis were dead, including four police officers. “It wasn’t a confrontation about Islam,” says the Karbala Tribal Council’s secretary-general, Sheik Ali al Assadi. “It was about politics. Naturally, money was part of that.” Every year, Shiite pilgrims donate millions of dollars at the shrines that were at the center of the battle. The money is administered by the grand ayatollahs; junior clerics speculate wildly about the exact total.
      akim`s assassination almost certainly helped set off the uprising. Four potential targets were named in Inizi`s warning: the ayatollah, his brother, their uncle (one of the four grand ayatollahs)--and Moqtada Sadr. The list spells nothing but trouble. The feud between the Hakim and Sadr families is a Babylonian version of the Hatfields and McCoys. "They`ve disliked each other for a long time," says a young cleric over a cup of tea in Najaf. He turns and asks his senior, "Why do they dislike each other, again?" The old man waves him off. Senior clerics don`t discuss such things publicly.
      Both families belong to the Iraqi Shiite aristocracy. But during Saddam`s rule, the Hakim brothers escaped to Iran. The Sadrs stayed in Iraq and were rewarded by Saddam, who appointed Sadr`s father, Ayatollah Mohammed Sadeq Sadr, as director of Najaf`s religious schools. As a result, the Sadrs dismiss the Hakims as "Iranian lackeys." The Hakims respond by calling the Sadrs "Baathist lackeys." Mohammed Sadeq Sadr was gunned down in 1999 after criticizing Saddam. Yet after the regime`s collapse, Moqtada tried to revive his father`s legacy. In May, Hakim came home from Tehran and headed straight for the pulpit of the Imam Ali Mosque, where Mohammed Sadeq Sadr used to preach. When that happened, some clerics say, Moqtada began hating Hakim even worse than he hates Americans.
      The FBI, which calls the Hakim murder case "a high priority," says Moqtada Sadr is "not our focus." Most of his fellow clerics, no matter what they think of him personally, say they`re sure he had nothing to do with the bombing. Privately, though, they say someone on his payroll might have had a role without Sadr`s knowledge. "It`s been clearly proven that the office of Sadr was infiltrated by Baathists," says a spokesman for one of the four grand ayatollahs. "Moqtada`s father tried to work with the regime and against it," says Adel Abdel Mehdi, a senior official in the Hakims` political party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. "This allowed a lot of Baathists in their movement. It`s important to get rid of them."
      An open war between Iraq`s Shiites would be a bloodbath. Sadr`s loosely organized Mahdi Army has several hundred core members, mostly from the Baghdad slums of Sadr City (the place took its name from his father). The Badr Brigade, led by the Hakims, has about 10 times that number, and their fighters have spent nearly two decades training with Iran`s Revolutionary Guard Corps. The grand ayatollahs have no militia of their own. They depend on the loyalty and good will of their followers. The question is whether that--together with a common hatred of the Sunni Baathists--will be enough to keep the peace.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      With Hilary Shenfeld in Chicago
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 23:42:19
      Beitrag Nr. 10.172 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 23:52:41
      !
      Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an feedback@wallstreet-online.de
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.03 23:54:45
      Beitrag Nr. 10.174 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 00:30:59
      Beitrag Nr. 10.175 ()
      How King of New York took battle to the Great Polariser
      Graydon Carter is one of the biggest names in US magazines. Now Vanity Fair`s editor is gunning for George Bush

      Joanna Walters in New York
      Sunday December 7, 2003
      The Observer

      He has been hailed as the King Of New York. With his charming manners and ability to make or break celebrities, Graydon Carter is to the magazine world what Jay Leno is to the American talk show - powerbroker to the formerly, currently and would-be famous.

      Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair, was portrayed by some as a lightweight when he took over from Tina Brown almost a decade ago. He once worked as a telegraph man in Saskatchewan before powering his way through American journalism and going on to become a celebrity in his own right. Now, however, he is no longer content with damning the reputation of Hollywood`s finest: Carter has emerged as the cheerleader of a movement to change the face of America by having George Bush thrown out as president.

      Famous throughout America for his A-list Oscar parties, Carter has picked up the challenge of leading America`s intellectual liberal luminaries in a battle against Bush when the race for next November`s election gets seriously under way with the primaries after Christmas.

      An influential institution at the grand Condé Nast monthly that, from its huge building on a corner of New York`s Times Square, rules on what is hot in A-list celebrity culture and style, Carter has turned his normally innocuous monthly Editor`s Letter into a campaign for `regime change`.

      His January 2004 letter will blast Bush`s `wrongheaded` state visit to Britain, ridicule Tony Blair as having a schoolboy`s crush on the President and slam `deceptions` in the run-up to a war in Iraq that is `out of control`.

      In previous columns he has accused Bush of lying over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and shaming the country by allowing members of the Saudi royal family to fly out of the US without questioning two days after the 11 September terrorist attacks. He has slammed healthcare gaps, security, the burgeoning deficit, tax cuts for the rich, the US reputation abroad and corruption.

      This has proved surprising given his magazine`s even-handed coverage of the war on Iraq, compared with the supine, pro-Bush stance of much of the American press.

      Denouncing Bush has made his Editor`s Letter one of the best-read parts of the magazine, with advertisers clamouring to pay top rates for the page opposite the column.

      Carter is now turning to Hillary Clinton as America`s saviour. He believes she is the only Democrat with the `X` factor - charisma, toughness and a certain je ne sais quoi that makes her a natural leader.

      This weekend it emerged that he is also writing an anti-Bush book and, he told The Observer, has been campaigning behind the scenes to get Hillary to run for president `right now`.

      `I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness. But there is a large, seething majority out there against what Bush is doing to this country. This administration is as fundamentalist as the Islamics,` Carter said.

      His book, What We Have Lost, which will examine the failings of Bush in office, is to be published late next summer as the election campaign approaches its climax.

      `It is about the fragile state of US democracy, looking at what this administration has done to the environment, the judiciary and civil liberties. This is a very dangerous time in America,` he said.

      He promised it will not be `hysterical` or a rant, but fact-based - researched by him and a small team and written himself: `It is different from the other books out there. I am not a liberal ideologue; I am very much a libertarian. I never got invited to the Clinton White House.

      `If Hillary announced right now that she was running for President she could beat Bush. She is no less qualified than he was when he got it and has been a good Senator.`

      Carter moved to the US from Canada 25 years ago. He admires his birth country`s progress on legalising soft drugs, passing gay marriage rights and opposition to the war in Iraq.

      Last week a Hollywood bash for the cream of wealthy intellectual society figures in Beverly Hills was starkly themed as a `Hate Bush` evening. Liberals are fighting back after years of flinching at the constant, populist right-wing vilification of Bill Clinton and ruing his self-destruction over Monica Lewinsky.

      Some commentators now believe Bush`s new status as hate figure surpasses even the intense loathing by the Left of Richard Nixon. Anti-Bush books feature heavily on the New York Times best-sellers list, such as Michael Moore`s Dude, Where`s My Country?, Al Franken`s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, and Bushwacked by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose.

      George Soros, the billionaire financier, recently gave £8.6 million to a liberal group because, he said, removing Bush had become `the central focus of my life`.

      Meanwhile, 90 per cent of party Republicans support Bush, despite Carter identifying signs of the start of a moderate Republican backlash. And Bush`s national approval rating went back above 60 per cent from less than 50 after he swaggered about for the cameras in Baghdad with a decorative Thanksgiving turkey that wasn`t even eaten.

      Time magazine has dubbed Bush the Great Polariser - love him or hate him. Joe Conason, author of Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth, said: `In terms of level of vitriol, left-wing rhetoric is every bit as strong now as it has been from the Right.`

      And liberal forces are striving to launch a radio network next year after a broadcasting company, Progress Media, bought radio stations in New York, Los Angeles and several other cities. Franken is likely to host a show, taking a stand against the massed ranks of right-wing `shock jock` radio talk-show hosts.

      Carter has been mocked by some for using frivolous, glossy Vanity Fair as his platform. Yet he is determined to drag the liberal masses out of their meekness to keep Bush from a second term: `Everything I love about America is fragile. I used to be an angry young man, but I suppose I got complacent. Now strangers stop me in the street to talk about Bush.`


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 10:31:22
      Beitrag Nr. 10.176 ()
      Making a killing in the new Iraq as cars, TVs, food and fridges flood in
      Rory McCarthy in Abu Flus, where lack of taxes and tariffs means business, legal and illegal, is booming

      Rory McCarthy in Abu Flus
      Monday December 8, 2003
      The Guardian

      All day long, televisions, fridges and crates of food are heaved by crane from the ship`s overflowing hold to be packed into trucks waiting to race north to the markets of Basra, Baghdad and the northern Kurdish cities. Further along the dockside, a line of cars newly arrived from Dubai rolls off another ship.

      Dozens of ships crowd the docks each day at Abu Flus, on the Shatt al-Arab waterway of southern Iraq, and offload vast cargos of food and consumer goods from the Gulf. There are no taxes, no tariffs and only the most cursory customs checks but for now this is quite legal in the new open market of Iraq. Fortunes are there to be made.

      By night the docks open for their clandestine customers. Bribes silence the policemen and unlock the gates to allow en terprising young men to deliver tanker-loads of Iraqi fuel which are loaded on to rusting hulks to be smuggled back out to the Gulf. Thousands of dollars exchange hands every trip.

      For years under Saddam Hussein`s regime the large concrete docks at Abu Flus - the name means "father of money" - were desolate and used only for the occasional oil export.

      Today few scenes in postwar Iraq capture so powerfully the exuberance and the lawlessness that has accompanied America`s invasion and its promises of free trade and open markets.

      One rainy afternoon at the port, duty manager Ali Hussein, 29, was watching a crew of dockworkers unloading Samsung 29-inch televisions from the Odin, a large, rusting white tanker which flies an Iraqi flag but carries the name of the North Korean port Wonsan on its stern.

      Under Saddam`s regime, Mr Hussein earned 3,500 Iraqi dinars (£1.20) a month. Now he takes home 100,000 dinars.

      "Every day we get two or three ships," he said. "They bring food, electrical goods, cars with Dubai number plates, anything. It costs $300 (£177) a day to dock the ship but they don`t pay any tax on anything they unload. We`re getting more ships every day and each one is packed fuller than the last."

      On the dock Ali Abdul Hussain, an agent for the powerful Kubba business family, is checking off an inventory that runs into tens of thousands of dollars and, as well as the televisions, includes beans, spare engine parts, clothes, nuts and dozens of second-hand fridges.

      "Before, it used to be hard for businessmen to go outside Iraq. Now there`s a really good opportunity to bring things in," he said. His only worry is security on the roads up to Baghdad - one Dubai-registered car bought by his firm had been stolen by bandits outside the town of Nassiriya that morning.

      Free trade was one of the pillars of the neo-conservative vision for the new Iraq: a progressive, secular democracy with one of the most open, tariff-free markets in the world.

      "The key message on Iraq since we got here is Iraq is now open to free trade," Paul Bremer, the US civil administrator of Iraq, said last month. "The borders are open for trade coming in. We have no tariffs."

      Apart from a 5% "reconstruction surcharge" which will be imposed on most imports from next month, the borders will continue to remain tariff-free.

      Under 30 years of Ba`ath party rule, it was quite the reverse. Iraq was a state-controlled socialist economy that grew more corrupt as it grew more isolated so that eventually only a small group of businessmen could operate and only after paying off a long queue of bureaucrats, security agents and relatives of Saddam.

      The vast influx of new satellite dishes, televisions, fridges and cookers on to the streets of Iraqi cities is one of the most visible signs of change since the war. But the corollary of these new-found economic freedoms is a wave of smuggling.

      Faris, 23, a high-school dropout and former soldier in the Iraqi army, is a regular visitor to Abu Flus. He drives down from his home in Basra to the port every 10 days or so, usually at around 2am.

      Through his father`s connections in the state-run South Oil Company he buys a 30,000-litre tanker-load of diesel on the black market for around $375 and then waits for an agreed night-time appointment.

      On the way to the port Faris stops every few minutes while a friend drives ahead to check for British army or Iraqi police patrols and checkpoints. As long as the way is clear, Faris delivers his consignment to a contact at Abu Flus, where dealers riding on small tankers from the Gulf pay around $3,000 for the tanker load. After others in the deal have taken their cut, Faris brings home around $650 every trip. He spent 18 months in the Iraqi army be fore he deserted last autumn. During his time in service he was only once paid his monthly salary: a total of $4.

      "I`ve got so many plans for my money," he said. "I`m divorced so I want to get married again and I want my own house and my own car and then I will stop."

      Faris walks through the streets of Basra with a pistol stuffed in his belt and understands the risks he runs. Several of his fellow smugglers have been held for weeks in the Umm Qasr detention camp outside Basra. British troops operate helicopter, boat and Land Rover patrols across the south every night looking out for smugglers like Faris. Several of the hardline Shia parties also operate unauthorised armed patrols.

      "I know that if I don`t stop I will regret this," said Faris. "And I know this kind of work is forbidden in Islam. If there is any other kind of legal work under the sun that I can do that pays as well as this, I will stop this smuggling."

      What`s on offer: the Baghdad shopping list

      Typical prices of newly imported, foreign-made goods in the shops and markets of Baghdad

      · Cooker $90 (£52)

      · Television $180

      · Fridge $180

      · Satellite dish and receiver $200

      · Hi-fi $200


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 10:33:12
      Beitrag Nr. 10.177 ()
      Europe and US clash on satellite system
      Ian Sample
      Monday December 8, 2003
      The Guardian

      European officials are set to clash with their US counterparts this week during discussions over Europe`s plans to develop a satellite network to rival the US-controlled global positioning system (GPS).

      European negotiators have already bowed to US pressure over plans to develop the rival system, in a move that will ensure GPS retains advantages over the European system. The US is now pushing for further concessions, and a deal giving some ground has been prepared to present to the US this week, the Guardian has learnt.

      Plans to push ahead with a European alternative to GPS, the satellite positioning system controlled by the US military, were finally given the official green light by ministers in Brussels this May.

      Known as Galileo, the new constellation of satellites will challenge the US monopoly on satellite positioning services by providing an alternative system for people with suitable receivers to get an accurate reading on their position and for businesses to track deliveries and vehicles.

      But news of Europe`s intentions provoked strong objections in the US, which claims the plans pose a threat to national security.

      The US relies heavily on GPS in war zones to guide troops and munitions to their targets. To prevent enemy forces also benefiting from GPS, US and allied forces tune into a specially encrypted military signal while jamming the second, publicly available GPS signal. The US fears that Galileo, which would offer a free positioning service to everyone, would make such tactics ineffective.

      The US is also vexed by China`s investment of £160m in the Galileo project. The US has already leaned hard on European officials to abandon the €1.1bn (£772m) project.

      Last year, the EU press spokesman for Galileo, Gilles Gantelet, declared that under the strain of American pressure, "Galileo is almost dead".

      While US pressure has not killed off the Galileo project entirely, concessions made by European officials mean Galileo will now be a much weaker rival to GPS than the system they had envisioned.

      Like GPS, Galileo will provide two separate positioning services, an "open service" that will give positions accurate to around four miles and an encrypted service called the public restricted service (PRS) which is reserved for government use.

      Some countries had argued that Galileo`s PRS transmissions should be so similar to the American military GPS signal that the US would be unable to jam the European version without jamming its own signal. Last month, however, European officials agreed to change the signal, meaning the US will be able to jam Galileo without interfering with their own signal.

      The current deadlock in negotiations concerns Galileo`s service that will be available to everyone. Officials in the US argue that Galileo`s transmissions for this open service are also too close to GPS signals used by the US military and are calling for changes so it too can be jammed if necessary.

      Moving the signal will lead to an inevitable loss in Galileo`s performance, potentially making the service only accurate to within eight miles.

      Sources contacted by the Guardian say European officials are ready to make a deal.

      European countries are keen to push ahead with Galileo so they are not tied to using GPS. While the US maintains its primary concerns over Galileo are linked to national security, others say they do not want the European system to be better than GPS.

      The US military signal gives an accuracy of around three miles at best, compared with Galileo`s one mile accuracy.

      The US also generates vast sums of money from GPS and a better alternative could seriously damage that income. Estimates put the sales of GPS receivers at $9bn (£5.2bn) in 2002 alone. Galileo-based services, such as automatic road tolling and delivery tracking, are expected to generate €74bn up to 2020.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 10:36:31
      Beitrag Nr. 10.178 ()
      Jihad has worked - the world is now split in two
      Ewen MacAskill
      Monday December 8, 2003
      The Guardian

      Osama bin Laden, two years and three months after the New York and Washington attacks that were part of his jihad against America, appears to be winning. He has lost his base in Afghanistan, as well as many colleagues and fighters, and his communications and finances have been disrupted. He may be buried under rubble in Afghanistan or, as Washington and London assume, be hiding in Pakistan`s tribal areas. But from Kandahar to Baghdad, from Istanbul to Riyadh, blood is being shed in the name of Bin Laden`s jihad.

      On Saturday, a Taliban bomb went off in the bazaar in Kandahar, aimed at US soldiers but wounding 20 Afghan civilians. On the same day, US planes targeted a "known terrorist" in Ghazni, also in Afghanistan, killing nine children. The deaths of the children will not help the US win hearts and minds in Afghanistan, or elsewhere; indeed, they will alienate Muslim opinion worldwide.

      There is a tendency in the west to play down - or ignore - the extent of Bin Laden`s success. The US and UK governments regard mentioning it as disloyal or heretical. But look back on interviews by Bin Laden in the 1990s to see what he has achieved. He can tick off one of the four objectives he set himself, and, arguably, a second.

      The objectives were: the removal of US soldiers from Saudi soil; the overthrow of the Saudi government; the removal of Jews from Israel; and worldwide confrontation between the west and the Muslim world.

      His success in the first is clear-cut. Bin Laden`s animosity towards the US began in earnest with the arrival of tens of thousands of US soldiers in his home country, Saudi Arabia, for the war against Iraq in 1991. He objected to their presence because Saudi Arabia holds Islam`s two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina.

      After September 11, the US did exactly what Bin Laden wanted. It pulled almost all its troops out of Saudi Arabia and moved its regional headquarters to Qatar. Relations between Washington and Riyadh have remained strained since September 11, not surprising given that the bulk of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia.

      Bin Laden has not succeeded in his second objective of overthrowing the Saudi regime. But its position is much more precarious than when he first called for it to be deposed. The US government`s ambivalence towards Riyadh has created jitters in the kingdom. The Saudi authorities, after a decade in denial, are now confronting al-Qaida and cracking down on preachers regarded as too fiery. Saudi Arabia, in spite of its oil wealth, has huge economic and social problems -including a large, disgruntled pool of unemployed youths - that leave it vulnerable. Reports of firefights between the Saudi authorities and al-Qaida-related groups are now commonplace.

      Bin Laden has not achieved his third objective either: the destruction of Israel. In spite of its suffering at the hands of suicide bombers, Israel is in the ascendant, with strict controls over the daily lives of Palestinians, frequentassassination of suspected bombers and other militants, and a continued land grab in the West Bank. But the one-sided nature of the conflict and the emotions it arouses beyond its boundaries have helped Bin Laden achieve the fourth and most important of his objectives: polarisation.

      In February 1997, he predicted such polarisation at a time when it seemed unlikely: "The war will not only be between the people of the two sacred mosques [Saudi Arabia] and the Americans, but it will be between the Islamic world and the Americans and their allies, because this war is a new crusade led by America against the Islamic nations."

      Bin Laden, assuming he is alive and wired to the internet, would have enjoyed the Times on Saturday, which devoted the best part of a page to a story headlined "the new enemy within", warning of a potential bombing threat in the UK from a British-born sleeper from the Muslim community. That such a possibility is no longer regarded as unlikely shows the extent to which the world has changed.

      Tony Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, have repeatedly argued that the "war on terrorism" is aimed at a small group of Muslim terrorists and the failed states that harbour them. They will, rightly, deny that it is a crusade against Muslims.

      Last week, for the first time, the Foreign Office published a list of its policy objectives, of which the war against terrorism was top, and acknowledged the danger of polarisation. Looking at the next 10 years, the Foreign Office said the battle of ideologies between market economics and Marxism that dominated 20th-century Europe appears to be giving way to battles over religion.

      "T he possible confrontation of ideas most likely to affect the UK and other western democracies in the early 21st century stems from religion and culture," according to the Foreign Office strategy document, UK International Priorities. "Religious belief is coming back to the fore as a motivating force in international relations; in some cases it is distorted to cloak political purposes. The question will arise most obviously in relations between western democracies and someIslamic countries or groups."

      Bin Laden`s September 11 attacks are mainly to blame for this polarisation. But the responses of George Bush have exacerbated this, with his two wars and the failure to tackle the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Two years after the occupation of Afghanistan, US control is patchy. Outside cities, travel is risky, and even within them, life can be dangerous, as the Kandahar bombing demonstrated. The Taliban have regrouped and are returning in strength.

      Perhaps the war on Afghanistan was necessary - but the war on Iraq was not. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. The US is fighting on two fronts, in control of neither country. Much of the resistance in Iraq to the US is from Saddam loyalists or criminal or tribal groups. But the US and British claim there are also elements of al-Qaida.

      Instead of the war on Iraq, Bush would have been better, as Blair continually advised him, to deal first with Israel-Palestine. Although the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, last week showed interest in the Geneva accord, the work of the Israeli-Palestinian peace camp, Bush has dropped any pretence of a US that acts as an independent arbitrator in the conflict. He has placed himself alongside Sharon. He has said he supports the creation of a Palestinian state, but shows no desire to use America`s political and financial power over Israel to try to bring it about. The resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, however, is the only immediate way of reversing the dangerous polarisation of the world that Bin Laden seeks.

      · Ewen MacAskill is the Guardian`s diplomatic editor

      ewen.macaskill@guardian.co.uk


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 10:43:12
      Beitrag Nr. 10.179 ()
      December 8, 2003
      NEWS ANALYSIS
      The Great Divide: The U.S. and Europe Stretch to Close It
      By ELAINE SCIOLINO

      PARIS, Dec. 7 — After months of acrimony, Europe and the United States are modulating their tone and struggling to work more cooperatively on the divisive issues of Iraq, Afghanistan and European defense cooperation.

      The conciliatory stance on the American side is motivated at least in part by the urgent need to have NATO countries contribute more troops and money to Iraq and to deliver promised and much needed troops and equipment to Afghanistan. But there is a universal recognition among NATO members that the rift both within the Atlantic alliance and between Europe and the United States has to be repaired if the alliance is to remain viable.

      "I won`t say everybody is pretending that everything is fine, but people are really trying to be more constructive, less emotional and, well, diplomatic," said one senior NATO military official who took part in meetings of the group`s defense and foreign ministers in Brussels last week.

      The most obvious evidence of the new tone was the public posture of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at the alliance defense ministers` meeting last week.

      "Maybe we ought to try to do a better job of communicating," he said at one point, much to the surprise of European defense ministers and military officers.

      When reporters asked him about a European Union plan for defense cooperation separate from the Atlantic alliance, he did not repeat his past criticisms, but ducked the question.

      "You`re egging me on. You`re trying to get me in trouble," he said, virtually admitting he was under instructions to hold his fire. He added, "I`m plucky but I`m not stupid."

      Instead, Mr. Rumsfeld praised the Europeans for developing military capacity that they could deploy rapidly in emergencies.

      More surprisingly, perhaps, he did not criticize France and Germany, the two most important American allies who opposed the Iraq war, for refusing to send troops or give financial support to help stabilize Iraq.

      Mr. Rumsfeld`s message was followed later in the week by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell`s call to NATO at its foreign ministers meeting to consider expanding its role in Iraq, a clear admission that the United States needs to internationalize its Iraq mission if it is to succeed. No one embraced the idea, but no one said no.

      "That was a sea change — that there wasn`t the derision and hostility toward the U.S. on Iraq that`s been here since the beginning of the year," said one senior official who attended the meetings.

      Finally, on Afghanistan, suggestions by both Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Powell that the United States would like the alliance to assume more responsibility, perhaps eventually taking over the entire American-led operation, would not only put more of a burden on the Europeans but would also underscore the centrality of the alliance.

      On the European side, even President Jacques Chirac of France, the staunchest opponent of the Iraq war effort, is looking for ways to play a more active role in the Atlantic alliance and even in Iraq.

      In a 90-minute meeting last week with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Chirac laid out situations in which France might be willing to help out in Iraq, according to an official familiar with the meeting.

      Mr. Biden declined to comment on the substance of his conversation with Mr. Chirac, but confirmed in an interview that Mr. Chirac was seeking ways to repair the relationship with Washington.

      Mr. Chirac also told Mr. Biden that France had requested the appointment of two French one-star generals to NATO`s command structure, one at the alliance headquarters in Mons, Belgium, the other in Norfolk, Va., as a sign of willingness to work more closely with Washington on security matters.

      "This is a time to be grown up, show a little sophistication," Mr. Biden said in Brussels last week, in urging the Bush administration to accept France`s request.

      Although France is not part of the military command of NATO, it has the second largest contingent in the alliance`s new rapid response force, which was inaugurated in October to respond quickly to long-range crisis missions. In Afghanistan, American and French soldiers are training the new Afghan Army, and American and French Special Forces conduct joint antiterrorist operations near the Pakistani border.

      A senior NATO military officer confirmed the French request but said it was uncertain whether the Pentagon would approve any move that would appear France-friendly.

      For their part, the American armed forces consider the French military the most expeditionary army in Europe, and are eager to expand military cooperation in the alliance, the officer added. France still has a contingency plan on the shelf to send 8,000 to 10,000 troops to Iraq under the right political circumstances, senior NATO officials said.

      Concerning a European defense identity, the Europeans have abandoned a plan to create a European Union military headquarters in Tervuren, Belgium, that would be separate from NATO. European Union foreign ministers agreed at their recent meeting in Naples, Italy, to create a small operational planning unit in the existing European Union military staff headquarters instead.

      That move followed an agreement among Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Mr. Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder that the European Union be allowed to plan and run its own military operations.

      In its deal with France and Germany, Britain won assurances that a European Union military operation without NATO participation would be a remote possibility.

      Even if a European Union military mission were planned and operated from a European Union center, it would be subject to a veto by any union member, British officials said.

      Despite deep divisions within the British government on how tightly to embrace France and Germany on European defense, Mr. Blair is convinced that by joining them he has been able to help shape the debate and that he can control the outcome in a way that will be acceptable to Washington.

      Mr. Blair and President Bush have consulted by phone about the plan, and Mr. Bush has said publicly that he believes that Mr. Blair "will be true to his word" that the plan will not undermine the alliance.

      According to some diplomats, as a result of his communication with Mr. Blair, Mr. Bush persuaded Mr. Rumsfeld to say nothing hostile about the European defense plan at the NATO meetings, especially in public.

      When asked about European defense in Brussels last week, for example, Mr. Rumsfeld admitted that the issue was "above my pay grade at this stage." He added that it would be "wrestled with" at the highest levels.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 10:45:20
      Beitrag Nr. 10.180 ()
      December 8, 2003
      POLITICAL LEADERS
      Iraqi Exiles Face Uncertainty as Enthusiasm for Them Dims at Home and in Washington
      By JOEL BRINKLEY and DOUGLAS JEHL

      AGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 7 — The way the exiles tell it, they are a gift to Iraq, shining role models for the new state.

      "People look up to those of us coming from abroad," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council who lived in London for nearly 25 years. He added that the exiles "bring culture and progress and advancement from the West, as well as democracy and respect for human rights."

      Half the Governing Council, and nearly all of the top political figures in Iraq today, are former opposition leaders who lived abroad during most of Saddam Hussein`s years in power. With Iraq moving toward a new political configuration, Iraqis are debating whether these men are the nation`s future or its past.

      For the United States, it is an important question because successive administrations have built lasting, interdependent relationships with some of the Iraqi exiles over two decades. American officials acknowledge that a new home-grown Iraqi leadership could be less predictable and, perhaps, less friendly.

      Today, most of the former opposition leaders appear intoxicated with their roles as interim leaders after decades in the political wilderness.

      Last month, Jalal Talabani, a longtime Kurdish leader, served as president of the Governing Council — the first time, his aides pointed out, that a Kurd had been the nation`s leader. He set out on a tour of the region, and the day he returned he remarked, his voice reflecting the wonder of it all, "Who would have thought that a Kurd could lead a delegation to Turkey to improve relations with Iraq?"

      Mr. Talabani and other Kurds in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq could not visit the rest of Iraq under Mr. Hussein`s government, just as the exiles from abroad could not. They and the exiles have their doubters and detractors, though.

      "Most of the Iraqi people are expecting their leaders to come from the parties who worked against the old regime from inside," said Abdul Latif al-Mayah, a political scientist who is a director of the Arab Homeland Studies Center at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The exile leaders, he added, "have been tested over the last months on the Governing Council and failed to achieve the things they talked about."

      Their star has dimmed in Washington, too. Before the war, some Bush administration officials, including Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, advocated creating a provisional Iraqi government made up entirely of Iraqi exiles.

      But in general, Bush administration officials now say, enthusiasm for the exiles has diminished over the months of occupation, as they have proved less reliable allies than many American officials had supposed before the war.

      Ahmad Chalabi, who had been a favorite among Pentagon officials, is now out of favor among some because of his sharp public criticism of the Bush administration. When he visited Washington in September, he was not granted a meeting with President Bush.

      "There`s certainly been an evolution in the role of the exiles," a senior administration official said. "In the beginning, people were looking to the exiles because everyone else was the great unknown. Now their prominence and authority has declined somewhat, because the veil has been lifted, and we`ve found over six months of being in Iraq that there are other people we know and have come to trust."

      In truth, most of the leaders Washington has come to know since the war were exiles, too, but they were not among those who curried favor in Washington.

      All of these former opposition leaders realize that under the self-government plan they approved on Nov. 15, they may have to win a popular election to remain in power. Most are already campaigning, though none of them are calling it that.

      "It`s a bit early for campaigning," said Hamid Majeed Mousa, leader of the Iraqi Communist Party, which has a European-style social democratic platform. He lived in Prague and Kurdish-controlled Iraq for several decades.

      Though he said he was not campaigning, Mr. Mousa acknowledged "talking to people in different parts of the country."

      "We have visited struggling families," he added, with the general goal of "making my party influential and important."

      Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish leader on the Governing Council, said he had been on television and visited people in Basra, Najaf and other points in southern Iraq where Kurds had not been able to travel for many years, though he claimed no particular interest in continued national public office. The same is generally true of Mr. Talabani.

      Though politicians in most democratic countries do not acknowledge their ambitions until the time is right, it is hard to find a former exile leader who professes any interest in leading the country. Iyad Alawi, for example, is a prominent exile leader who has had close relations with the C.I.A. and who has been vigorously working to establish a national political base since returning last spring. Still, he said: "Things are so confused that I don`t want to be a part of it. I think I will move to Lebanon or someplace else in Iraq."

      But if they will not acknowledge their ambitions, nearly all the exile leaders are eager to describe their potential constituencies.

      "My tribe has 200,000 people in Iraq" and neighboring countries, said Sheik Ghazi Ajil al-Yawar, a Governing Council member and tribal leader who lived in Saudi Arabia before the war.

      "My tribe is in Nasiriya," Mr. Rubaie said. Gesturing toward his bodyguards, he added, "I`ve got 16 blood relatives right over there."

      While all the exiles believe that they could be elected to the transitional assembly to be chosen in June, they also realize it will be a greater reach to move up to the next stages: the interim government, the government to be elected in 2005 or even the presidency or premiership.

      Without expressing immediate interest in any of that, many of the former exile leaders promote the things they have learned abroad.

      "Living abroad gives us this amazing experience, learning how wonderful democracy is," Mr. Mousa said.

      They also said they had acquired an ability to compromise that seems alien to Iraqi culture. "I call it the all-or-nothing phenomenon," Mr. Rubaie said. "Compromise is a dirty word in Arabic. For Iraqis everything is a statement of principle."

      As Sheik Yawar put it: "People here speak from their heart. And when you speak from your heart, you have a hard time hearing anyone else."

      But for all the talk of their special qualifications, many of these former opposition leaders still betray a certain insecurity about their future.

      The Governing Council decided last week that it would try to stay in power after the provisional government is formed in June, despite an earlier agreement to dissolve.


      Joel Brinkley reported from Baghdad for this article and Douglas Jehl from Washington.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 10:50:59
      Beitrag Nr. 10.181 ()
      December 8, 2003
      A Former Clinton Official Wins Runoff for Mayor of Houston
      By RALPH BLUMENTHAL

      HOUSTON, Dec. 7 — If every underdog has his day, this was Bill White`s as he savored a decisive victory on Saturday in the runoff for mayor of Houston.

      Mr. White, 49, a businessman, former chairman of the Texas Democratic Party and deputy energy secretary in the Clinton administration, began far behind two opponents early this year. But he easily beat Orlando Sanchez, 46, a Republican and former city councilman, 62 percent to 38 percent, in the costliest mayor`s race in city history.

      "I`m Bill White and I`m ready to serve as Houston`s next mayor," Mr. White told cheering supporters on Saturday night in his victory speech, which began while Mr. Sanchez was still delivering his concession speech in another hotel.

      Mr. White, who ran a cerebral race that commanded the advertising airwaves, vowed to turn his campaign into a "civic movement" to tackle the traffic, budget, flooding and police woes in Houston, the fourth most populous city in the nation.

      Mr. Sanchez, who was hoping to become the city`s first Hispanic mayor, lost a close race to the incumbent, Mayor Lee P. Brown, two years ago. Mr. Brown, a former police commissioner of New York City, was barred by term limits from running for a fourth two-year term, but sagging approval ratings would have made for a difficult re-election campaign, political experts said.

      Another contender, Sylvester Turner of the state House of Representatives, was making his second bid for mayor after a narrow loss in 1991 but was eliminated in the election on Nov. 4.

      With Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Turner, who is African-American, and Mr. White, who is white, the mayoral race mirrored the ethnic and racial makeup of Houston, a city where no group holds a majority and where voting blocs are a staple of elections.

      But Mr. White built his victory on a technocrat`s managerial platform that drew wide support and cut across traditional lines. He was endorsed by Mayor Brown and four other former mayors.

      Mr. White is chairman of an investment consortium, the Wedge Group, which he will leave when he takes office on Jan. 2. He put $2.3 million of his own money into his campaign and raised $6 million more from contributors. Mr. Sanchez spent $3.3 million in direct contributions and Mr. Turner about $1 million, for a total of more than $12 million.

      The mayor of Houston, who earns $165,817 a year, enjoys one of the nation`s strongest city pulpits. The mayor has appointive powers beyond those of many of his big-city colleagues, operates as his own city manager and sits on the City Council.

      And the eyes of the nation will be on Houston on Feb. 1 when it plays host to the Super Bowl and showcases a new light-rail system for the occasion.

      Houston elections are nonpartisan. But Mr. White was long identified as a Democrat and Mr. Sanchez a Republican. Although Mr. Sanchez attracted some support from the national party, Mr. White maintained good relations with the Bush administration and was spared sharp partisan attack. His victory makes him one of the few successful Democrats in a state dominated by Republicans.

      The hard-fought campaign flirted with farce several months ago when a scheme emerged to slip another candidate named Bill White onto the ballot, evidently to siphon votes from Mr. White the businessman. A woman said she had been paid by the Turner camp to arrange the ploy; Mr. Turner denied it. But then the real Mr. White drew fire by giving her $5,000 to cover her expenses and drop the effort. No charges were filed against anyone.

      Mr. White said he would focus his efforts on guiding Houston`s explosive growth.

      "Houston is like my 12-year-old son who outgrew his pants three times last year, which is good," he said an interview in his campaign office as the race wound down a few days ago. "But traditionally Houston waits to buy its pants until they`re outgrown."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 10:55:10
      Beitrag Nr. 10.182 ()
      December 8, 2003
      A Paper Trail for Voters

      Ever since the voting trauma in Florida three years ago, election officials have been trying to find a better way to cast and count ballots. As progress is beginning to be made, it is critical that the new strategies do not create as many problems as they solve.

      With the help of $3.9 billion in federal funds set aside to improve elections, states have begun the move to electronic voting machines. The new A.T.M.-style machines are easier for most people to use and undeniably faster. But recent glitches in Virginia and Florida have revived questions about how to recount a computerized vote after a close or suspicious election. New machines can already print a total of all votes cast, but that is simply a reflection of the computerized tally. What is needed is a paper record of each voter`s choices that the voter can verify.

      The most reasonable answer is to require that the machines be equipped with printers that will produce what Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, calls a "parallel paper record" of the vote. That makes sense to us. Like deeds, diplomas and other vital public documents, the nation`s votes still need to be preserved somewhere on paper.

      This view has drawn a lot of criticism, particularly from companies that make electronic voting machines. They say that adding a paper trail will cost more and that the printers will complicate the maintenance of the machines. Mainly, however, the machines` supporters say no fail-safe system is necessary because the machines are extremely secure.

      Companies like Diebold Election Systems, which is one of the largest manufacturers of computerized voting machines, have not done their case much good by getting involved in politics. Walden O`Dell, the chief executive of Diebold Inc., is an ardent Republican fund-raiser who has committed to "helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes" to President Bush in next year`s election. Such comments naturally fuel concern, especially among Democrats who note that Ohio is an important swing state in presidential elections and that machines from Mr. O`Dell`s operation are among those being considered as new voting technology across the country.

      Even without conspiracy theories, however, election experts from both parties worry that all these A.T.M.-style voting machines are not adequately protected against an advanced computer geek aiming to scramble the votes or a political hack turned political hacker.

      California last month took the lead in demanding a backup paper tally of the vote when Secretary of State Kevin Shelley ordered that by July 2006, all electronic screen voting machines must have a "voter verified paper audit trail." Since California is expected to spend about $400 million on its new machines, the big voting machine companies are scrambling to make the paper options available and workable.

      California`s push also may make it easier for other states that are still circling the voting machine issue. New York is way behind, as Albany`s politicians prefer to direct their attention to the more pleasant question of who gets the big new contracts for voting equipment. But New Yorkers — especially New York City voters — need the assurance that their votes are available on paper for the recounting. Too many elections teeter on a few hundred votes, and candidates rightly expect human beings to be able to double-check the results. America`s election apparatus needs to move firmly and quickly into the computer age. But the public must feel secure that each vote is really counted. At this stage, a voter-verified paper trail offers the public that necessary security .



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 11:16:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.183 ()
      December 8, 2003
      OP-ED COLUMNIST
      Hillary, Congenital Hawk
      By WILLIAM SAFIRE

      WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Clinton, sweeping through the Sunday morning talk shows after her somewhat upstaged Thanksgiving visit to the war zones, startled her conservative detractors by emerging as a congenital hawk. (I used that adjective "congenital," in the sense of "habitual," in derogation of her credibility back when the world was young.)

      She does not go along with the notion that the Iraqi dictator posed no danger to the U.S.: "I think that Saddam Hussein was certainly a potential threat" who "was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them."

      When Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" gave her the opening to say she had been misled when she voted for the Senate resolution authorizing war, Senator Clinton countered with a hard line: "There was certainly adequate intelligence without it being gilded and exaggerated by the administration to raise questions about chemical and biological programs and a continuing effort to obtain nuclear power."

      On forgotten Afghanistan, like many hawks, she was critical of the failure of European nations "to fulfill the commitment that NATO made to Afghanistan. I don`t think we have enough American troops and we certainly don`t have the promised NATO troops."

      Would she support an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq? Senator Clinton associated herself with the views of Republican Senator John McCain, who disagrees with Bush and the generals who say they have adequate strength there. She cited McCain`s conviction that "we need more troops, and we need a different mix of troops." And she directed a puissant message to what some of us consider the told-you-so doves who refuse to deal with today`s geopolitical reality: "Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, failure is not an option."

      Her range of expressed opinions urging us to "stay the course" can only be characterized as tough-minded.

      Of course, to the relief of Democratic partisans, she is dutifully critical: like some neocons, she zaps the Bush administration for failing to plan adequately for the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam. She proposes an "Iraq Reconstruction Stability Authority" to build an international bridge to a greater U.N. role. Clinton also wants a close look at where our intelligence went wrong, but takes a long view of the weak gathering and faulty analysis: "This was intelligence going back into my husband`s administration, going back to the first President Bush`s administration."

      Consider the political meaning of all this. Here is a Democrat who has no regrets for voting for the resolution empowering the president to invade Iraq; who insists repeatedly and resolutely that "failure is not an option"; who is ready to send in a substantially greater U.S. force to avert any such policy failure — and yet whose latest poll ratings show her to be the favorite of 43 percent of Democrats, three times the nomination support given front-runner Howard Dean.

      What cooks? One reason is that Hillary stands aloof, hard to get, while all the others are slavering for support. Another could be that most Democrats don`t yet realize she`s a hard-liner at heart. A third is that her personal appeal to liberals (and apoplectic opposition from conservatives) overwhelms all Democrats` policy differences. A fourth — and don`t noise this around — could be that she speaks for the silent majority of centrist Democrats who yearn for the Old Third Way without Mr. Clinton.

      Now for a moment`s mischief. If President Bush wins re-election, Hillary would likely gain the Democratic nomination in 2008, and would run as the favorite against, say, Republican Bill Frist or Jeb Bush. But if Howard Dean wins nomination and election in 2004, he would surely be the Democratic candidate again in 2008, and by the time 2012 rolls around, Hillary would be a wizened, doddering Medicare recipient facing a tide of voter resentment after eight years of Dean`s executive-privilege arrogance in power (I exaggerate for effect).

      Thus, envision this G.O.P. whispering campaign soon directed to women, liberals and the legions of centrist, semi-hawkish, non-angry Democrats: If you want the Clinton Restoration to the White House in `08, the only way to make it happen is to stay the course with Bush in `04.

      A dirty trick? Undoubtedly. I disavow any connection to it.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 11:20:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.184 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 11:22:41
      Beitrag Nr. 10.185 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 11:40:48
      Beitrag Nr. 10.186 ()

      Afghan men pray next to the graves of nine children killed in a U.S. airstrike that targeted a suspected terrorist in the east Afghan town of Atala on Saturday.

      washingtonpost.com
      Bout of Violence Rattles Afghans
      Attacks, U.S. Airstrike Cast Pall Over Progress Toward Constitutional Assembly

      By Pamela Constable
      Washington Post Foreign Service
      Monday, December 8, 2003; Page A16


      KABUL, Afghanistan, Dec. 7 -- A flurry of terrorist attacks over the past several days, as well as the deaths of nine children Saturday in a U.S. air assault on a village where a lone Taliban fighter was said to be hiding, have cast a jittery pall over preparations for a historic constitutional assembly scheduled to begin Wednesday.

      The U.N. envoy to Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, reacted with unusual sharpness to the Saturday air raid, saying it "follows similar incidents" and "adds to a sense of insecurity and fear in the country." Afghan officials were more restrained in their response.

      Security is already tight for the constitutional assembly, with soldiers stationed at many city intersections. Officials have vowed not to let the U.N.-mandated meeting be sabotaged by violence, but they said Sunday that it may now be delayed by several days.

      The recent attacks also threatened to overshadow two milestones in the country`s reconstruction and pacification: the imminent completion of the 310-mile highway from Kabul to the southern city of Kandahar, a U.S.-funded project, and the launching Sunday of a program to disarm and demobilize thousands of militia fighters in Kabul province.

      Since Thursday, a bomb planted on a bicycle in downtown Kandahar wounded about 20 people; two Indian highway workers were kidnapped by reported Taliban fighters while buying chickens in a village in Zabol province; and a crew of census takers was ambushed by gunmen in remote Farah province, leaving one dead.

      At the same time, U.S. military officials said an American air raid over the village of Atala in southern Ghazni province Saturday inadvertently killed nine children as well as a suspected Taliban fighter whom U.S. forces had targeted. Officials said the man was responsible for a recent ground attack on a U.S. military helicopter. Provincial officials and villagers, however, disputed reports of the man`s death.

      On Sunday, children`s hats and shoes were scattered over a bloody field cratered by the U.S. airstrike on the mountain village, the Associated Press reported.

      The U.S. raid immediately evoked comparisons to a U.S. gunship attack in July 2002 that killed 42 villagers in Uruzgan province, as well as an air raid last month that killed several members of a religious leader`s family during a U.S.-led anti-terrorist operation in Nurestan province.

      Brahimi, the U.N. special representative, urged that lessons "be learned from this episode so it will not be repeated."

      Afghan President Hamid Karzai was quoted on BBC Afghan-language radio Sunday night as saying he was "shocked and upset" by the deaths, but both he and other Afghan officials refrained from serious criticism of the U.S. military operation.

      American military officials here said that the raid was based on "very complete" information that a Taliban fighter known as Mullah Wazir was hiding in the village, and that they had no idea children were in the immediate area. They said U.S. military personnel are in the area to assist the families of the victims.

      U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said he was "deeply saddened" by the "tragic loss of innocent life." He told Afghan journalists that he had personally reviewed U.S. military aerial films of the area, and that they showed no children. He also said Wazir had boasted of killing civilians.

      Ali Ahmad Jalali, the Afghan interior minister, said the children were killed "mistakenly," but he said the government had "asked for an explanation" from U.S. military authorities -- who pledged to investigate -- and had sent a team to probe the site. Jalali, who was terse and subdued at a brief news conference, described the targeted Wazir as a "notorious" Taliban terrorist leader.

      Haji Assadullah, the governor of Ghazni province, said: "It has not been ascertained if Mullah Wazir was killed or not," but the house targeted in the air attack belonged to him, the Reuters news agency reported.

      A resident of the village, Hamidullah, said his 8-year-old son, Habibullah, was among the dead. He said that the man killed along with the children was a cousin of Wazir`s, while another villager said Wazir had left the village two weeks ago, according to the Associated Press.

      Jalali, the interior minister, also described in some detail the kidnapping Saturday of two Indian highway workers, who he said had left their guarded camp and visited several village markets in Zabol province when their car was stopped by armed men. He said that the Indians were taken away and that several Afghans with them were freed.

      "It looks like this was not a planned attack. . . . We are investigating it, and we hope to get to the bottom of it soon," said Jalali, adding that the incident might have links to the same local Taliban commander who kidnapped a Turkish highway engineer in October. The Turk was released unharmed last week after a month in captivity and weeks of negotiations with Afghan officials.

      Revived Taliban forces have staged a series of increasingly daring and frequent attacks across southeastern Afghanistan in recent months, apparently attempting to sabotage the government`s efforts at political and economic reconstruction and to undermine its relations with other nations. Numerous foreign aid projects have been suspended as a result of the violence.

      The bicycle bomb in Kandahar and the kidnapping of the Indian workers followed a series of other attacks and threats by Islamic extremists, including the Nov. 16 slaying of a French woman working for the U.N. refugee agency. Also last week, a rocket landed in a field near the U.S. Embassy here, and authorities discovered a large cache of weapons and ammunition in the Kandahar prison from which 41 Taliban detainees escaped in October.

      The U.N. spokesman here, Manoel de Almeida e Silva, said U.N. officials were "deeply shocked" by the Kandahar bombing and other extremist attacks. But he added that "Afghanistan is on the path of reconstruction, and Afghans, their government and their international partners will not be deterred by these despicable acts."

      Over the past week, the United Nations has held relatively smooth elections across the country for candidates to the constitutional assembly, known as a loya jirga, with over 19,000 delegates participating. Officials said there have been a few incidents of militia commanders or other ineligible candidates being elected, but that they will be disqualified from attending the assembly.

      One purported spokesman for the Taliban Islamic extremist movement told news agencies that anyone attending the assembly "deserves to die."

      Officials said Sunday that the loya jirga will now likely be postponed by several days because of logistical issues. The constitutional assembly, a crucial step in Afghanistan`s political progress toward national elections next year, had already been postponed once from its original October date.

      Meanwhile, 200 soldiers and militiamen in Kabul province turned in their weapons to U.N. officials at a national guard base, beginning a process aimed at eventually demobilizing tens of thousands of fighters in the area. The disarmament of the Kabul area is considered crucial to pacifying and stabilizing the country.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 11:46:05
      Beitrag Nr. 10.187 ()

      Hae Chun Suh, president of Korea`s Ohmoo Electric Co., waits outside a hotel room as electrical engineers, angry over inadequate security, negotiate with a Korean diplomat before deciding to abandon their contract and leave Iraq.
      washingtonpost.com
      After Attack, S. Korean Engineers Quit Iraq


      By Ariana Eunjung Cha
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Monday, December 8, 2003; Page A01


      BAGHDAD, Dec. 7 -- A week after two of their colleagues were killed in an ambush, the remaining 60 South Korean contract engineers and technicians working for the U.S. government on a project north of the capital have decided to leave the country.

      It is the largest known withdrawal of contractors over security issues and follows a week of confrontations between the workers and their managers that culminated with yelling and punches Sunday afternoon.

      The decision by the men, who were working to fix electrical power lines, is likely to delay one of Iraq`s most critical reconstruction projects. The workers are subcontractors for the Washington Group International Inc., a construction firm based in Boise, Idaho, that has a $110 million contract with the Army Corps of Engineers to repair sections of Iraq`s power grid.

      Electricity -- or the lack of it -- has become a symbol for the challenges facing the reconstruction. Many parts of the country still get only a few hours of electricity a day, a fact that angry Iraqis cite as evidence that the reconstruction has failed to live up to its promises. The difficulty in restoring power has had a ripple effect on other projects, making it difficult to operate factories, oil refineries and even produce cement.

      Anxiety over security is increasing among the thousands of contractors in Iraq, as attacks in recent weeks have appeared to focus on unarmed civilians who look like foreigners. Recent victims include a Colombian working for Kellogg Brown & Root, an oil and military support contractor, and two Americans working for EOD Technology Inc., a company specializing in the removal of old munitions.

      Many large contracting companies concede that employees have left Iraq recently or have declined assignments because of safety concerns. The lack of security is complicating efforts to hire the thousands of contractors necessary to staff the $18 billion worth of new reconstruction projects recently approved by the U.S. government.

      The Korean electricity workers said they were sorry to abandon the project but that they had been led to believe that the area they would be working in -- the Sunni Triangle, where resistance to the U.S.-led occupation has been strongest -- was stable. They said their managers withheld information crucial to their safety and neglected to provide them with protective equipment.

      "If I had known it would be like this I would have never come. It was dangerous but no one told us, and they kept us working outside even into the night," said Hyun Do Cho, 40, an engineer from Seoul.

      The engineers and technicians are employees of Ohmoo Electric Co. of Korea, which is a subcontractor of the Shiloh company of the Philippines, which in turn is a subcontractor of the Washington Group. Officials from Ohmoo and Shiloh said they regretted the hardship they have subjected their employees to, but declined to comment on specific allegations. They said they would remain in the country for the time being to determine whether there was a way to continue the work -- which was scheduled to be completed by the end of the month.

      A spokesman for Washington Group, Jack Herrmann, said he had not been updated on the status of negotiations and therefore could not comment on the future of the project. He said that the company makes security personnel available to all of its employees and subcontractors, but that it is the responsibility of the subcontractors to provide protective equipment.

      The South Korean engineers arrived in Iraq in groups beginning Nov. 11, and began surveying transmission towers on the road that runs north from Baghdad, past Tikrit, the home town of Saddam Hussein, and on to the oil town of Baji. The engineers were sent out in plain clothes, without flak jackets or helmets. They routinely traveled with only a driver, in large SUVs, without escorts or bodyguards, they said.

      On Nov. 30, four of the engineers were ambushed on that highway. The details of the attack are unclear, but around 1:30 p.m., a military patrol found their bullet-ridden vehicle on the side of the road, a South Korean embassy spokesman said. Two of the contractors -- Kyung Hae Kwak and Mansoo Kim -- and their Iraqi driver, Luay Harby, were dead. The other two men, Jae Suk Lim and Sang Won Lee, lay bleeding in the back seat. Lim, shot once in the leg, and Lee, shot three times in the leg and twice in the hip and buttocks, were evacuated to a U.S. hospital in Germany, the spokesman said.

      When the other workers heard about the attack, they said that their initial reaction was confusion. They could not understand why their colleagues had been targeted. But as they began to research the situation, they became irate, they said.

      They learned that the previous day, two Japanese diplomats had been killed at just about the same location and in just about the same manner, the workers said. Suddenly, it appeared that all foreigners -- not just Westerners -- were targets. There had also been a huge firefight between U.S. forces and Iraqis just a few miles away in Samarra; at least 54 Iraqis, many of them wearing uniforms of Saddam`s Fedayeen militia, had been killed in the incident. The engineers asked their bosses why no one had warned the workers and why they were still being asked to work in the area. They also questioned why they had not been provided with protective gear or guards, standard issue for many companies that employ foreign nationals in Iraq.

      And so a standoff began the day after the attack. The contractors refused to go out to the work sites until they got answers and a promise of more security. They said their managers withheld their passports and pay, and would not allow them to go home.

      By Sunday afternoon, the workers said they had had enough. Several dozen of the men rented a bus and went to the house where six of the company`s executives lived.

      It wasn`t exactly a kidnapping, but the managers did not go by choice. When an alarmed Iraqi employee called out to ask where they were being taken, one of the managers began to respond, but a worker smacked him in the head, a Washington Post reporter observed. Workers led the managers by their arms to a conference room in the back of the Tutaitulah Hotel, where the workers had been staying.

      The room was dim, and the executives were placed in a row of seats in the front of the room.

      Hae Chun Suh, Ohmoo`s president, wearing a sky-blue bullet-proof vest, stared stoically at the crowd. E Sah Park, a manager for Shiloh, sat in a corner with his hands on his face after a worker had hit him in the stomach. Another worker was seen throwing some food left over from lunch at his bosses, the reporter observed.

      Then, either individually or in small groups, workers came up to yell at them. "Why were they alone? Why wasn`t there anyone to help our friends?" demanded Song Kun Bae, 35.

      Tae Ho Ohm, 42, chastised the managers for not taking into account the emotional state of the workers when they tried to order everyone back to work the next day. "The way we think, those who lived and died, we are all the same," Ohm said.

      The workers placed blank pieces of paper in front of their managers and told them to write letters apologizing for their role in the deaths of their co-workers and promising that there would be compensation. "And write it prettily," one worker demanded.

      About a half-hour into the confrontation, the Korean consul in Baghdad, Hae Hong Pyun, rushed into the room.

      Pyun asked for calm and said that it would be best for everyone if the dispute were resolved peacefully. He suggested that the workers pick representatives who would negotiate a settlement with the managers. They went upstairs to a hotel room.

      By around 5:30 p.m. the discussion was over.

      The managers and workers came out of room 201 and announced that they had reached an agreement, which was written in neat Korean script on lined notebook paper.

      The company would pay roughly $270 for each working day and $135 for each non-working day -- a 50 percent increase over their contracted salary -- plus an additional $2,700 for mental stress and hardship, according to both sides. They would also give each man a one-way ticket home.

      But there was no jubilation, no cheering from either side. Some of the workers were seen in the lobby chatting and chain-smoking on their last night in Baghdad. Others scurried to their rooms to pack. Still horrified by the death of two of his workers and exhausted from the day`s events, Suh, the president of Ohmoo, collapsed in a corner of the hallway and began to cry.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 11:51:23
      Beitrag Nr. 10.188 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      U.S. Gone `Off a Cliff` In Iraq, Gingrich Says


      By Howard Kurtz
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Monday, December 8, 2003; Page A07


      Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said yesterday that the Bush administration has gone "off a cliff" in postwar Iraq and that "the White House has to get a grip on this."

      In a blunt critique by a leading Republican, Gingrich said the administration has failed "to put the Iraqis at the center of this equation. . . . The key to defeating the bad guys is having enough good guys who are Iraqis," he said on NBC`s "Meet the Press."

      The administration did not send enough Iraqi Americans there after the war, Gingrich said. On the main online site of the U.S. occupying authority, he added, "up until last week you didn`t see a single Iraqi on that Web page," and now there is only one.

      White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. defended the administration`s policy. "I think things are going very well in a very tough situation in Iraq. . . . Newt Gingrich is not all-knowing," he said on CBS`s "Face the Nation."

      Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, hit three Sunday talk shows and said she agreed with Gingrich. She blamed the administration for "miscalculation" and "inept planning" in Iraq, as she put it on ABC`s "This Week."

      "I do think we need more troops" in Iraq, Clinton said. She said she believes in giving the chief executive the authority to wage war, as her husband did in Bosnia and Kosovo. "But I regret the way the president has used the authority."

      Clinton dismissed complaints that she should not have criticized President Bush while in Iraq and blamed a "right-wing apparatus." Clinton said she was merely responding to questions from U.S. troops. "I`m not going to lie to an American soldier," she said on CBS.

      On domestic politics, Clinton assailed the administration for "radical ideas" such as eliminating overtime payments for millions of workers. "I thought they wanted to undo everything Bill Clinton had done," she said on NBC. "I took that a little personally. . . . Then I realized they`re taking aim at the New Deal."

      Clinton laughingly insisted on each program that she would not accept the Democratic presidential nomination, or even the vice presidential nod, in 2004. She declined to comment on the candidacy of former Vermont governor Howard Dean, saying she is not taking sides in the primaries.

      Dean, interviewed on "Fox News Sunday," defended his recent statements in New Hampshire that he needed to "teach" Bush about defense because the president "doesn`t understand what it takes to defend this country, that you have to have high moral purpose."

      "There are not very many countries, after three years of George W. Bush`s presidency, where people want to be like us anymore," Dean said. "That is what I mean by the loss of high moral purpose." He also said Bush had backed off efforts to cut combat pay for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Dean was asked about his comments on National Public Radio`s "The Diane Rehm Show" last week concerning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He said then: "The most interesting theory that I`ve heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can`t be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis."

      Dean said yesterday that "I can`t imagine the president of the United States doing that," but added that Bush needs to "give the information" to the commission investigating the attacks. Asked why he raised the theory, Dean said: "Because there are people who believe that. We don`t know what happened in 9/11."

      Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie later called Dean "reckless and irresponsible" for "floating this incendiary theory."



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 11:57:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.189 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Democracy, Not Off-the-Shelf


      By William Raspberry

      Monday, December 8, 2003; Page A25


      The Bush administration seems determined to get into the business of exporting democracy to the Middle East. And a lot of Americans are wondering what took so long. After all, America is the political, military, economic and, yes, cultural envy of the world, and the one thing we are certain has produced that enviable status is the way we govern ourselves: U.S. democracy.

      Viewed that way, it seems downright uncharitable not to offer the world a draft of the elixir that has made us what we are.

      Thus it was that a month ago, in one of the more stirring speeches of his presidency, George W. Bush was urging a "crusade for freedom," beginning, conveniently, in Iraq but spreading with such force as to engulf the whole region, including our friends the royally ruled Saudis.

      And I`m thinking: Maybe we ought to back off just a bit.

      It isn`t that I don`t favor democracy. I do, and I`d love to see more of it in the world. But because of America`s peculiar history (excluding that unpleasant little episode called slavery), we may be thinking of democracy as a lot easier, more natural and more inevitable than it is.

      We sometimes behave as though, if we can only get democracy on the supermarket shelf alongside other forms of government, the world will choose it the way it would choose fresh-squeezed orange juice over canned.

      So what`s wrong with getting democracy on the shelf? Nothing at all. I`d love it to be available; I`d love to see our foreign policy promote it; I`d love us to tilt toward democracy at every opportunity.

      But when the talk is in the context of Iraq (with overtones of transforming the Middle East), it seems to suggest not just support of local democratic stirrings but a policy of injecting democracy every chance we get. And even that will strike some people as no more inappropriate than the idea of Christian proselytizing has struck others. I mean, those people need Jesus, and it`s our God-ordained role to spread that word.

      Sometimes, in religion and in politics, it works. There are more Christians and more democracies today than there were a generation ago.

      Still, there is reason for caution. After all, it takes a lot more than theoretical availability to get nations to choose democracy, and it takes a lot more than elections, however free or fair, to produce it. I`m reminded of an observation uttered more than 10 years ago by someone who understood the point.

      "Elections are not automatically the establishment of democracy. . . . Democracy is a process, painful to establish in a land that has never known democracy, where suspicions are high, where absolutism has been the way of life. In a way it`s a cultural thing that needs to be based upon respect for human rights, for other people`s opinions, for institutions, including the courts. Elections are only a step -- a necessary step -- toward the goal of democracy."

      The words were from Francois Benoit, a representative of Haiti`s government during the exile of the democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. But they are worth noting and remembering.

      So is this: Democracies are not necessarily engines of great morality. The Communitarian Network recently invited responses to the Bush proposal that America reconsider its 60-year support of autocracies in the Middle East. Here is what one respondent, a Canadian professor, had to say:

      "Democracies can be worse than autocracies. To be poor in democratic Mexico or Brazil is certainly worse than to be unrepresented in Cuba or Saudi Arabia. We should know better than to put much stock in the form of government. That it is necessary even to say this shows how tightly we are in the grip of a clichéd ideology."

      That is professor Michael Neumann`s caution. Here is mine: When you combine overwhelming military might with the utter certainty that your way is the one true way, the temptation can be very strong to impose truth -- political or religious -- at gunpoint.

      We could do with a bit less cocksure certainty on both counts.

      willrasp@washpost.com



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 12:00:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.190 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      A War of Choice or of Necessity?


      By Lawrence J. Korb

      Monday, December 8, 2003; Page A25


      Eight months after the Bush administration got us involved in a bloody war in Iraq, we are now told by one of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell`s closest advisers that Iraq was a war of choice after all. According to Richard Haass, director of policy planning at the State Department until June 2003 and still the Bush administration`s special envoy to Northern Ireland, the administration "did not have to go to war against Iraq, certainly not when we did. There were other options" [op-ed, Nov. 23 ]. Really?

      This is not what the administration told us before the war and continues to tell us to this day. On March 20, as he was sending troops into Iraq because the regime of Saddam Hussein allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ties to al Qaeda, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld told them, "We are at the point at which the risk of not acting is too great to wait longer. As you prepare, know that this war is necessary . . ." Some three weeks into the war, Powell, who had made the case for war to the United Nations, stated: "We do not seek war. We do not look for war. We don`t want wars. But we will not be afraid to fight when these wars are necessary to protect the American people, to protect our interests, to protect friends."

      Even after it had become abundantly clear that the arguments the Bush administration advanced for going to war were specious, both Vice President Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz explicitly rebutted Haass`s position. In an Oct. 10 speech to the Heritage Foundation in which he lashed out at those who said we had a choice about invading Iraq, the vice president said: "Some claim we should not have acted because the threat from Saddam Hussein was not imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" On Nov. 4 Wolfowitz stated: "But one of the things that Sept. 11 changed was that it made it a war of necessity, not a war of choice."

      The president himself continues to proclaim how necessary the war was. On Nov. 22 he said at a press conference in London, "Our mission in Iraq is noble and it is necessary." On Thanksgiving Day the president told the troops in Baghdad: "You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq so we don`t have to face them in our own country."

      Even more surprising is Haass`s contention that despite its public pronouncements, the Bush administration knows that, because this is a war of choice, Americans will not support it unless it is relatively short and cheap. This is why the administration has changed its policy and accelerated the timetable to hand over increasing political responsibility to Iraqis, even if it means reducing what it is trying to accomplish.

      Haass weakens his own case by arguing that the first Persian Gulf War was a real war of necessity and Vietnam was only a war of choice. Even those who argued against the recent invasion of Iraq would not contend that it was less necessary than the first Persian Gulf War. As Secretary of State James Baker noted in 1990, that war was really about oil. And Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as such defense hawks as Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), wanted to give sanctions more time to work before invading Iraq. (If it was so necessary, why did the administration of the elder Bush not invade until it got other nations to fund the war?)

      It is equally absurd to argue that the first Gulf War was more necessary than Vietnam. In the mid-1960s many Americans, including most of us who were in the armed forces, believed that if South Vietnam fell to the Communists all of Southeast Asia would soon follow and the containment policy would be undermined. This is why the American people supported that conflict through the Tet offensive of 1968, even though more than 30,000 Americans had died by then.

      Ironically, while Haass is wrong about Vietnam and the first Gulf War, he is right about Iraq. It is a war of choice -- a bad choice as it turns out. Unfortunately, he was unwilling to go public with his views, as did Gen. Eric Shinseki, while he could have made a difference. This article should have been written nine months ago when Congress and the American people had a choice. Now our only real choice is to continue to stay and absorb the casualties and the cost.

      The writer is senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and senior adviser to the Center for Defense Information. He was assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 12:10:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.191 ()
      Fair and Balanced™ Cartoons

      Cartoon Archive
      69 New Cartoons Today. Sind 69 frische Cartoons nicht genug?
      http://www.flu-ent.com/graveyard/20031208__069toons.htm



      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 14:15:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.192 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-afgh…
      THE WORLD



      U.N. Calls for Inquiry Into Afghan Attack
      American officials say they are investigating the U.S. airstrike that killed nine children, who were playing within a walled compound of a home.
      By Hamida Ghafour and Jonathan Peterson
      Special to The Times

      December 8, 2003

      KABUL, Afghanistan — The top United Nations official in Afghanistan called Sunday for a swift investigation into a U.S. airstrike that left nine Afghan children dead, saying that such attacks would increase Afghans` feeling of insecurity and fear.

      In a statement, the U.S. military said Sunday that it regretted the deaths and was conducting its own probe into the bombing Saturday that targeted what a U.S. Army spokesman called a known terrorist.

      Ground forces who checked the scene of the airstrike later discovered the bodies of nine children near the dead terror suspect, the military said. But Afghans contended that the Taliban militant whom U.S. forces wanted to kill had escaped.

      "This incident, which follows similar incidents, adds to the sense of insecurity and fear in the country," Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations special representative to Afghanistan, said in a statement.

      He urged the military to make public the results of its investigation, saying: "The protection of civilians is an obligation that must be observed by all."

      Brahimi said he was "profoundly distressed" by the incident.

      The children were playing in the walled compound of a home early Saturday morning when an American A-10 Warthog aircraft bombed the village of Hutala, in the province of Ghazni, 80 miles southwest of the Afghan capital.

      Children`s hats and shoes littered a bloody field cratered by gunfire Sunday, Associated Press reported from Hutala.

      "They were just playing ball, and then the shots came down," said Hamidullah, a distraught villager who said his 8-year-old son, Habibullah, was among those killed, AP reported. Like many Afghans, the family members use only one name.

      U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the intended target, a former local Taliban commander named Mullah Wazir, was killed in the attack, a claim Afghan officials and residents disputed.

      A U.S. military spokesman at Bagram air base, north of Kabul, said Wazir`s body had been found near the site of the attack. He is believed to be responsible for the recent killings of two foreign workers building the Kandahar-to-Kabul highway.

      However, a spokesman for the governor of Ghazni said the airstrike had missed Wazir.

      "The Americans wanted to bomb Mullah Wazir but they bombed a different house," Jawaid Khan said.

      "The people there are very afraid. They have no idea why the Americans bombed their village."

      Khalilzad said he was "deeply saddened" by the "tragic loss of innocent life" and said he had spoken to interim Afghan President Hamid Karzai about the attack. A senior U.S. military officer and Afghan officials were meeting Sunday with the bereaved families in Hutala, he said.

      A commission was being set up to investigate the deaths, U.S. Army Maj. Christopher E. West said at Bagram air base. He said American troops had collected "extensive intelligence" on Wazir`s whereabouts in the village. He described Wazir as a "known terrorist."

      "At the time we initiated the attack, we did not know there were children nearby," West said in a statement.

      A statement released Sunday by U.S. Central Command noted that "coalition forces follow stringent rules of engagement to specifically avoid this type of incident while continuing to target terrorists who threaten the future of Afghanistan."

      One analyst said Sunday that such tragedies underscore the dilemma of U.S. forces who are trying to present America as a humanitarian nation but who also do not want to let enemies escape.

      "The hard part isn`t getting insurgents," said Loren Thompson, an expert on military strategy and technology at the Lexington Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Arlington, Va., that focuses on national security issues. "The hard part is maintaining your humanity as you do it."

      U.S. foes in Afghanistan and Iraq are trying to exploit the fact that civilian casualties harm the image of the United States with local residents, he said.

      "It has become common practice both in Afghanistan and Iraq for insurgents to operate in close proximity to civilians as a way to try to dissuade attacks on them," he said, adding that the "sad reality … is that if we wait to make certain we`re attacking the enemy, the enemy almost certainly will escape."

      At the same time, an expert on military technology expressed some surprise at reports that U.S. forces employed an A-10, known for its ability to wipe out a broad swath of ground targets, if U.S. forces were aiming for one individual.

      "I have seen them in action, and they can lay down a pretty withering amount of ordnance," said William H. Kincade, a military strategy and technology expert at American University`s School of International Service in Washington, noting the aircraft`s original purpose: attacking Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War.

      Kincade said that the initial press accounts, suggesting that U.S. forces were in pursuit of one individual, raised questions such as, "Why were they using this aircraft? Why weren`t they using ground troops? … I hate to say it, but the A-10 is kind of overkill if you`re trying to get one person."

      Thompson said that virtually all targeting plans in the circumstances U.S. forces now confront come with an element of doubt: "Given the state of our technology we can be more precise than ever before, but there`s always a significant element of uncertainty in any targeting plan," he said.

      The children`s deaths occurred in a mainly Pushtun region that blames the U.S.-led coalition for widespread instability and banditry in the south and east of the country.

      One-third of Afghanistan, including Ghazni, is off-limits to aid workers as the 11,500 soldiers hunt for supporters of the former Taliban regime and Al Qaeda.

      The security vacuum and the coalition`s mishaps have created a situation in which Afghans are increasingly looking to the Taliban era as a time of stability because the regime brought law and order.

      The worst attack on civilians in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban regime in December 2001 occurred in July 2002, when an American AC-130 gunship attacked a wedding party in Oruzgan province after it had come under fire, the military said.

      As many as 48 people were killed and 117 suffered injuries. Afghans traditionally fire weapons to celebrate a marriage.

      *


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Times special correspondent Ghafour reported from Kabul and staff writer Peterson from Washington.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 14:18:07
      Beitrag Nr. 10.193 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq8dec…
      THE WORLD


      U.S. to Expand Iraqi Corps
      By Carol J. Williams
      Times Staff Writer

      December 8, 2003

      BAGHDAD — Faced with persistent attacks from Iraqi insurgents, U.S.-led coalition forces have decided to expand the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps to free up occupation troops for more targeted offensives, the commanding general said Sunday.

      Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said enemies of the occupation are likely to continue stepping up ambushes, assassinations and sabotage as the coalition works to meet a target date of June 30 for handing over power to an interim Iraqi government.

      His remarks follow a week in which coalition troops mounted a fierce attack on suspected insurgent strongholds in Samarra and began pursuing them in other towns and villages with more aggressive attacks, dropping 500-pound bombs on suspected hide-outs.

      U.S. offensives appeared to have driven insurgents into lying low this past week, the first in months unmarred by a major bombing or high-profile assassination. One U.S. soldier was killed and two wounded near Mosul on Sunday when a roadside bomb detonated as their three-vehicle convoy drove through the area.

      The past week`s casualties have been low compared with a November death toll of 111 coalition troops, the worst month since April. The week also saw the average daily number of clashes between coalition forces and insurgents fall from 40 in November to 19.

      Sanchez said his troops were bracing for the pace of attacks to mount as the handover date approached.

      The stepped-up offensives coincide with greater use of Iraqi Civil Defense Corps recruits to perform labor-intensive security operations such as manning roadblocks and performing security checks.

      Sanchez said the coalition, in which 130,000 U.S. troops comprise almost 90% of the occupation force, was pleased with the "effectiveness" of the newly recruited Iraqis and would boost their numbers from the current 13,000 to 40,000 by April.

      Despite the dangers of guerrilla attacks against Iraqis cooperating with the coalition, Sanchez said there were plenty of applications to join the force. With unemployment rampant, the attraction of regular dollar wages overcomes fear of insurgent reprisals for many.

      Although the conflict in Iraq has been characterized as "low-intensity" since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1, Sanchez made clear he would continue to use whatever tactics — including heavy bombardment — he considered necessary to fulfill his mission.

      "We will continue to use whatever combat power is available to defeat the enemy," the general said when asked about the use in recent days of 500-pound bombs in Fallouja and other hotbeds of insurgency. "When the enemy chooses to fight, we are going to eliminate them."

      Coalition forces have pledged to rebuild or reimburse in cases of property damage inflicted on Iraqi civilians by the intensified bombings to avoid further erosion of public support for the occupation.

      The general described the hunt for Saddam Hussein as looking for "a needle in a haystack," but said his troops would eventually find "the right haystack." Capture of the fugitive leader remains a defining goal of the occupation. He acknowledged, however, that nabbing Hussein wouldn`t eradicate the guerrilla forces.

      "Killing or capturing Saddam Hussein will have an impact on the level of violence, but it will not end it," he said.

      Sanchez said the expanding civil defense forces would welcome security troops from political parties but only as members of a unified corps and, until the handover, under the command and control of the coalition forces.

      Shiite Muslim and Kurdish politicians have been lobbying for inclusion of their security detachments as autonomous units within the corps against the objections of the top U.S. civilian administrator, L. Paul Bremer III.

      Leaders of Sunni and other factions also fear that those party security units, if left intact or autonomous, could politicize and create divisions within the corps, which would be responsible for national defense after the transition.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 14:21:09
      Beitrag Nr. 10.194 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dower8d…
      COMMENTARY



      History in the Remaking
      Bush`s comparison of Iraq with postwar Japan ignores the facts
      By John W. Dower

      December 8, 2003

      In a recent speech in London, President Bush declared that not only were we making "substantial progress" in Iraq but that "much of it has proceeded faster than similar efforts in Germany and Japan after World War II."

      What are we to make of this murky use of history? The truth is that what is happening in Iraq presents a stunning and fundamental contrast to what took place in occupied Japan and Germany over half a century ago — and not a positive one.

      Six months after our occupation of Iraq began, more than 180 GIs have been killed and well over 2,000 wounded. Iraqi casualties are even higher. No one seems to be in charge, and there is still little agreement about who should be.

      Now consider Japan. Here was a populace socialized to think in terms of death before dishonor — an adversary whose greatest wartime innovation (after the preemptive strike on Pearl Harbor) was the terrifying kamikaze suicide attack. Yet in the wake of defeat, and in the midst of widespread misery, not a single serious incident of violence against the occupying forces was reported.

      What is more, six months after Japan`s surrender in mid-August 1945, Gen. Douglas MacArthur presided over an efficient military government in Tokyo that soon stabilized at between 5,000 and 5,500 military and civilian personnel devoted to "civil affairs." Esprit was high. Would-be American reformers were looking forward to being joined by their families. That doesn`t sound much like Iraq today.

      Half a year into the occupation of Japan, policies aimed at achieving "demilitarization and democratization" were well underway. A few weeks after MacArthur`s arrival in Tokyo, the U.S. released its official "post-surrender" policy. In the seventh week of the occupation, the Japanese government was told, in lengthy detail, precisely what repressive laws and institutions to abolish.

      One week later, on Oct. 11, MacArthur issued a famous statement calling for "liberalization of the constitution" and rapid implementation of democratization in five fundamental areas — emancipation of women, unionization of labor, liberalization of education, establishment of a judicial system that protected people`s rights and democratization of economic institutions. Basic reforms were soon in place that enlisted the energies, expertise and support not only of American and Japanese officials but of a broad spectrum of ordinary Japanese as well.

      Where the Japanese government faltered, moreover, the Americans were ready and able to take even more decisive action. This occurred most dramatically, as it happened, almost precisely at the half-year point on the critical issue of constitutional revision. In February 1946, after it became clear that the conservative government could not bring itself to propose drastic reform, MacArthur`s staff stepped in to write a model charter, guide it through several "governmental drafts" and then oversee its deliberation and adoption in the national parliament.

      All this was accomplished amid suffering and hardship that surpassed what we see in Iraq today. About 3 million Japanese died in World War II, out of a population of about 70 million. Sixty-six major cities had been bombed, and perhaps a quarter of the national wealth destroyed. The sprawling Tokyo-Yokohama area was largely rubble — a devastated landscape that astonished the first Americans who landed in Yokohama and made their way to the capital. Millions were homeless. Malnutrition was widespread. Between 5 million and 6 million repatriates were flooding in from overseas.

      So why did the occupation of Japan succeed? Here are a few reasons:

      The Japanese surrender — after a protracted war — was not merely formal but "unconditional." Emperor Hirohito ordered the military to lay down its arms, and then he remained in place to endorse the occupation and its agenda. Political and administrative institutions carried on intact, top to bottom.

      In this milieu, virtually no one — neither among the victorious powers throughout Asia nor even within Japan itself — challenged the legitimacy of the occupation. And "legitimacy," with all its far-reaching moral as well as legal connotations, matters enormously.

      Unlike Iraq, which emerged as a construct of British and European power politics in the wake of World War I, Japan was a "natural" nation, never before conquered in a recorded history that traces back well over a millennium. It was also a nation that had been seriously "modernizing" since the mid-19th century. Historians of Japan invariably dwell on the many manifestations of "democracy" and "civil society" that were already taking root before militarists took over in the 1930s.

      Even in the midst of unprecedented defeat, moreover, strong traditions of social cohesion held the ravaged country together. Though the occupation forces encountered an unexpectedly vigorous range of political and ideological ferment — ranging from conservatives through liberals and social democrats to socialists and communists — Japan was spared the religious, ethnic, tribal and regional fault lines that undermine stability in Iraq.

      There was a different attitude on the part of the Americans as well. U.S. officials had three years to plan "post-surrender" strategy rather than rushing through it as they have done in Iraq. In 1945, no one dreamed — as happened this time around — that a small, makeshift team of civil-affairs specialists could just march into a complex, ravaged land with a few changes of clothing and install a government of handpicked favorites.

      Japan was also spared egregious incompetence, blind hubris and blatant war profiteering on the part of the occupiers. No one went into defeated Japan thinking of it as a new Gold Rush. Although the nation lay in ruins in 1945, it was essentially taken for granted that the Japanese government and private sector, working together, should assume primary responsibility for economic reconstruction.

      Until the end of the occupation in April 1952, it remained basic policy to encourage Japanese "self-sufficiency." Thus, in 1949 and 1950, the Americans promoted legislation pertaining to foreign exchange, trade and investment that provided a basis for governmental protection and promotion of domestic industries.

      Here — to return to President Bush`s speech — is the one area in which U.S. policy in occupied Iraq has unquestionably "proceeded faster" than in Germany and Japan after World War II. It has done so, however, by promoting policies and priorities that were simply unthinkable then. Reconstruction has been turned over to foreign corporations led by American firms, and sweeping "privatization" measures have been proposed that call for placing the entire economy — except for oil — up for sale.

      As announced in September, these measures would cap corporate taxes, slash tariffs and permit foreign companies to not only buy 100% of Iraqi firms but also immediately repatriate any profits. Even the conservative Economist magazine, which supports this extremist agenda, calls it a "yard sale."

      Viewed in a cold light, almost everything that abetted stability and serious reform in postwar Japan is conspicuously absent in the case of Iraq. The president`s opportunistic use of history really does little more than expose the old drunk-and-the-lamppost syndrome that we see also in corporate accounting and intelligence gathering: The lamppost is being used for support rather than illumination.

      Gen. MacArthur, staunch Republican that he was, must be spinning in his grave.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      John W. Dower, a professor of history at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the author of "Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II" (W.W. Norton & Co., 1999), which won both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award for nonfiction.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 14:24:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.195 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 14:28:25
      Beitrag Nr. 10.196 ()
      Wal-Mart`s Big Squeeze Play
      VIEW FROM THE LEFT
      Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
      Monday, December 8, 2003
      ©2003 SF Gate

      URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/12/08/hsorensen.DTL



      Question: When is big too big?

      Answer: When it`s Wal-Mart.

      About 50 years ago, when I lived in Seattle and worked at Boeing, I stumbled one day upon a Luther League forum debating this question: "Is it possible to succeed in business using Christian ethics?"

      We didn`t have rabid liberals and rabid conservatives in those days -- or, at least, not many of them -- so most of the people involved in the forum were what we now call "middle of the road."

      The conclusion they reached at the end of the hour was a woeful no. Nobody wanted to admit that the Golden Rule is not a good business rule, but "facts is facts," and the forum was an honest one.

      Which brings us to Wal-Mart. To the best of my limited knowledge, Sam Walton did not break any laws building his fantastic Wal-Mart empire, and his low-price philosophy certainly helped a lot of people. But Walton`s success was ruthlessly created on the backs of fragile human beings, a good many of whom are worse off for the experience.

      So, on balance, is Wal-Mart more good than bad, or more bad than good?

      Sam, who started it all, is gone to his heavenly reward now, but his empire is about to invade California soon in a way that will change our state more than has the mass migration from Mexico.

      Starting next year and continuing over four years, Wal-Mart plans to build 40 grocery-store "supercenters" in California. What that means in one respect is, "Hello, Wal-Mart, good-bye, Safeway and Vons and Albertsons and Ralphs and Raley`s and the other supermarket chains, and good-bye 250,000 excellent union jobs statewide."

      If you`re a journeyman checker at one of the supermarket chains in California, you make around $19 per hour with excellent health benefits, even if you`re a part timer. That`s not enough to buy a house in Northern California, but it`s a living. However, the same job at Wal-Mart pays about $9 per hour, with health insurance so pricey that many employees can`t afford it. That`s low enough to consider living in your car.

      The Los Angeles Times ran an outstanding three-part series on Wal-Mart, beginning Nov. 23. If you`re registered with the Times, you can find that series on the Web: For part I, click here; that article has links to parts II and III.

      Most of the information in this column is taken from that series.

      Wal-Mart is the 800-pound gorilla hiding in the shadows behind the 70,000-worker supermarket strike and lockout in Southern California. The workers are simply trying to maintain their wages and benefits, but management, mindful of rising health-insurance costs and the forthcoming invasion by Wal-Mart, is holding out for take-aways, higher co-pays and a two-tiered income structure that threatens to ultimately decrease wages for all workers.

      It`s a mess. The workers` concerns are legitimate, but so are management`s. Wal-Mart is already the nation`s largest grocer, and when it comes swooping into California, all hell is going to break loose in the grocery industry.

      Shoppers will love the prices. Wal-Mart puts such a tremendous squeeze on suppliers that it can, in fact, buy and sell for less.

      However, California growers and other suppliers will not be happy. Wal-Mart is about to squeeze them like they`ve never been squeezed before.

      Putting the squeeze on is what Wal-Mart does. Every year at contract time, it demands that its suppliers provide more for less. This pushes suppliers into their own squeeze tactics -- paying their workers less, cutting benefits and now, with the global economy, seeking out workers elsewhere who will work for less.

      So production moves from America`s Rust Belt to the Deep South, to Mexico, to Central America, to the Far East, and, most recently, to remote provinces of China.

      Every time it moves, production leaves empty factories and unemployed workers behind. While producing customers for itself, Wal-Mart does a terrific job of destroying customers for everyone else.

      Who benefits most? Well, five Waltons are tied for fourth place in Forbes magazine`s list of the richest Americans in 2003: Alice, Helen, Jim, John and S. Robson Walton, each worth an estimated $20.5 billion. (The top three are Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Paul Allen.)

      Therefore, Wal-Mart presents some perplexing problems. As Americans, we applaud entrepreneurship, so, to many of us, Sam Walton is a national hero. We also enjoy the reduced prices Wal-Mart provides.

      On the other hand, capitalism is a system of winners and losers, and Wal-Mart has left a bloody trail of losers behind. And it`s acquired too much power, if you consider that one company with the capability of destroying thousands of jobs has too much power.

      Wal-Mart has become so powerful, in fact, that a measurable rise in U.S. productivity can be attributed to it. Further, it has become so powerful globally that it is now affecting the policies of some foreign governments, which kowtow to its economic might.

      In a republic such as ours, where the will of the people is supposed to reign supreme, such giants are to be feared, in my opinion, and curtailed. There`s nothing wrong with big. But there is such a thing as too big.

      Wal-Mart won`t limit itself, but you and I can slow those people down. I won`t shop at a Wal-Mart. I don`t care how much money they can save me, I won`t enter one of those stores. If they ever start paying their workers decent wages and giving them first-rate benefits, I will reconsider.

      I`m not much of a consumer, so my personal boycott doesn`t affect me much, but one does what one can. People who worry about Wal-Mart`s size and policies might influence the giant by letting it know how they feel. Letters and e-mail.

      As Californians, I think we should support our grocery workers on strike and lockout in Southern California. If they lose, we all lose eventually.

      On the other hand (and this is where it gets complicated), we should at the very least sympathize with supermarket management. If not for their fear of Wal-Mart, they`d be willing to settle with their workers.

      Maybe the California Legislature can repass the bill outlawing big-box stores (i.e., Wal-Mart). Maybe Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign such a bill. His predecessor, Gray Davis, vetoed it last time around. Schwarzenegger is more honest than Davis, but, then, who isn`t?

      You and I can save money by shopping at Wal-Mart. We also can save money by stealing. The question becomes, Is money the most important thing in our lives, or do we have higher values?

      Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist. His column appears Mondays. E-mail him at harleysorensen@yahoo.com.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 15:15:52
      Beitrag Nr. 10.197 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 20:42:37
      Beitrag Nr. 10.198 ()
      Monday, December 08, 2003
      War News for December 8, 2003


      Jede Meldung ein Link
      http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/


      Bring ‘em on: US troops ambushed by roadside bomb near Duluiyah.

      Bring ‘em on: Sabotage continues with attacks on oil and electrical infrastructure.

      Bring `em on: One US soldier killed wounded in drive-by shooting in Mosul.

      Bring `em on: Iraqi police sapper killed in bomb explosion in Baquba.

      AFN arrives in Baghdad.

      Indonesia says Bush’s War is a quagmire and “did not bring about any significant change in the nature of the world’s problems”.

      Sunni clerics warn that CPA plans to deploy Kurdish and Shi`a militia will cause civil war in Iraq.

      Remaining South Korean electrical contractors leave Iraq.

      Bush’s War is a mess.

      Sen Kerry says Lieutenant AWOL is a fuck-up. Here`s an opportunity for another Google-bombing on the White House webpage.

      Another soldier sounds off about Operation Jive Turkey. (Second letter.)

      Bangladesh evacuates diplomats from Iraq.

      Andy Card says manipulation of intelligence is a “moot point.”

      General Sanchez says to expect an upsurge in attacks against US troops and "taking out" Saddam Hussein will have little effect on insurgency.

      Newt Gingrich slams Lieutenant AWOL`s Iraq policy. "In an exclusive interview with Newsweek, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a quiet confidant of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, says the U.S. went `off a cliff in Iraq.`" Since Newt is one of the neo-cons on Rummy`s Defense Policy Board who helped engineer this folly in the first place, it appears that he is just another one of the rats jumping Lieutenant AWOL`s foundering yacht of state.

      Commentary

      Editorial: “Cheney was supposed to prevent something like this from happening. He was supposed to protect the not so well prepared W. from the big mistakes. And yet, as more accounts of the maneuvering inside the administration are revealed, it is increasingly clear that it was Cheney who was the moving force behind the decision to fight a war of choice against Iraq.”

      Opinion: World War II and Bush`s War. "Bush led us into war not with those who had attacked us but with a target of choice, without direct provocation -- Saddam Hussein, after all, had nothing to do with 9/11. It was as if Bush liked the feel of victory, the adoration of the people. Or whatever the feeling is that comes from changing regimes nobody asked you to change."

      Opinion: Bush`s War has damaged American national security. " What did Bush have in mind when he abandoned the pursuit of al-Qaida and misrepresented intelligence reports about Iraq`s "weapons of mass destruction"? Why did Bush manipulate the public to lead more than half of them to believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were allies, when in reality they were enemies? How did Bush convince Congress that invading Iraq was a good idea?"

      Operation Cut and Run

      Rummy plans to cut training even more for Iraqi police. “’Experts say it should take eight weeks to train a policeman. We put some out on the street after four, with the understanding that we needed them on the street and life isn`t perfect.’ He said the Pentagon aims to provide the remaining weeks of training in the future.”

      Bushies now want another strong man with a moustache. "If the result is the dismemberment of Iraq, so be it. Iraq has become a mess. There is only one priority: to `get out with dignity.` This strategy is now being rammed down the throat of the US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, by George W. Bush`s new `realist,` Deputy National Security Adviser Bob Blackwill."





      # posted by yankeedoodle : 2:58 AM
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 21:06:54
      Beitrag Nr. 10.199 ()
      December 6 / 7, 2003
      http://www.counterpunch.org/tripp12062003.html
      Conspiratorial Reading
      How Bush Can Still Win
      By BEN TRIPP

      My two most cherished conspiracy theories are:

      1. Bush knows the exact location of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and he`s waiting until late October of 2004 to make the busts, thus ensuring he`ll win on a tsunami of popular approval as the President Who Won The War On Terrorism (favorite fillip on this theory is that it will be orchestrated so both misdemeanants are found in the same location, possibly a bath house or adult novelty shop, thus proving Bush was Right All Along.)

      2. Code Red on Election Day-for God`s sake, keep out of the streets. Martial law. Chaos. Are you crazy? Elect someone new in the middle of a friggin disaster? We may see Chicago nuked, or Godzilla rise from the sea and trample the Mid-Wilshire district in Los Angeles. Bush to appear on national television during election day, his face grave and soot-smeared from personally digging victims out of the rubble and handing turkey sandwiches to the survivors. He encourages voters to go out there and vote for whoever they think is the right man for the job. He dashes a tear from his eye and gives CPR to an infant.

      3. Michael Jackson was framed.

      See, since the aircraft carrier hoopla and the secret trip to Baghdad, I understand that these Bush League pillocks will stop at nothing. W. has become his own stunt double. There will be no more sedative-addled rushes between secure locations such as occurred on 9/11. There will be no more blowback such as followed the notorious `Mission: A Codpiece` appearance aboard that Navy aircraft carrier, following which the war in Iraq actually began. From now on, the Bush operatives are going to run things their way, which means into the ground, which means they are going to get their boy elected if it kills him.

      This has been the most political White House in American history ( I should know, I`m writing a book of American History and I`ve had to research every last one of the sons of bitches-turns out there were about three good administrations since 1801). By `political`, cher lecteur, I don`t mean this White House contains an unusual proportion of politicians, although White Houses do contain on average more politicians than, say, a circus or a gynecologist`s convention (excluding Bill Frist). Rather I mean that the motivations of this White House are predicated entirely on political means and motives. It has no public policies except those based on political advantage. Crush opposition, ram through personal agenda, sodomize public, rinse and repeat. There is no legacy here, except the legacy of wealth the ultra-rich are accreting under cover of confusion. What we have is a machine entirely devoted to self-perpetuation. It cares nothing for cost. It cares nothing for environmental impact, workplace safety, or the common good. This here machine chugs night and day, spewing fetorous Hadean reeks, making more of itself. Dr. Seuss warned us this would happen, but we grew old and forgot.

      For people accustomed to the simple concept of Doing Whatever It Takes, it was merely a matter of time before they started reading the paranoid conspiracy web pages and decided to act out the best theories. "I know," one of the Neocons must have said during the donut & prayer meeting one morning, "Let`s send Junior to Baghdad. He can parachute in with a bag of toys on Christmas morning. Maybe if we can work it he could fight Saddam in hand-to-hand combat and kill him. We just have to get a couple cameras in there." Bush got all excited and piped up: "fuck yeah, I could yell, `this is for America! This is for Freedom!` and gut him like my Mom used to gut wild boars." That calmed everybody down and they settled for whisking him into Baghdad a couple hours during Thanksgiving Day. This is how they`re thinking, if thinking is the word I want. Bill Frist shows up for his first week as Senate Majority Leader and immediately starts saving people in road accidents and resuscitating heart attack victims. You notice he hasn`t done any of that heroic stuff recently? The Bush people noticed, too. Lesson learned: all you need is a photo op, then get the hell on to the next thing. Promise nothing. All der Hosenscheisser had to do was land on the carrier. The banner was overkill. So in the refined version of the same human cannonball routine, they merely have him show up somewhere dangerous for a few minutes. No message, no embarrassing graphics. The simple fact that he`s there is enough. If Bush`s operators could have gotten some advance warning, you can bet he would have pried that tiger`s jaws off pouf celébre Roy Horn during a whistle stop in Las Vegas.

      The deadly part of this is that we`re occupying two foreign nations (Iraq and Afghanistan, for those of you who may have forgotten) for reasons having little or nothing to do with the terrorist threat that emerged as Bush`s raison d`etre (since he stopped drinking, before which he had a raisin d`etre--a little yock for the francophones out there). Not only are we fighting these two wars, and apparently losing both of them through sheer hubris, but we`ve exploded, so to speak, the terrorist menace from its original `small but determined enclaves` into `anybody with a grudge that doesn`t eat ham`. Which takes some doing. At this point if we want to wipe out terrorism by force of arms we`ll have to demand everybody on Earth eat a crispy chicharrone, and anybody who refuses, we shoot him dead. In fact my anti-terrorist tee-shirts (emblazoned with a picture of raw pork) are selling like corndodgers. Terrorism is running rampant the world over. Meanwhile, in America (you remember that place) we`ve given up huge chunks of our liberties, our economy is looking lively as a corpse with farded cheeks, the visible holes plugged with mortician`s wax; we`ve got a deficit so big that like a black hole or Donald Rumsfeld`s ass it will suck all matter into itself. Our old people, our poor people, and our working class (at this point all three categories are the same people) have been publicly and brutally screwed; and the rest of the world, with which we have in past times enjoyed some laughs, is afraid to come near us lest our condition prove to be communicable. Meanwhile, Michael Jackson.

      On a day when British embassies came under lethal attack as a direct result of precedent Bush showing up in London (they should have flown him in during the wee hours, like in Baghdad), a day when embassies exploded, when an immense and angry crowd rose up and staged effigy-toppling in the heart of England`s capitol-on this day, Americans tuning in to the news didn`t see any of it. We saw an empty parking lot instead. A parking lot across which, God willing, erstwhile entertainer Michael `Do I Look Like Lilian Gish Yet` Jackson would walk into captivity. Once again, our news media failed us. The rest of the world was in flames, and we were watching Lot C, Row 14, from a helicopter. One of my other favorite conspiracy theories is that the Bush people know a dirty secret on every desk editor of every news agency in North America, and they make quiet phone calls whenever it`s time to look the other way, sort of a journalistic version of the boxing maneuver known as `taking a fall`. But I suppose the actual problem is they don`t make real journalists any more. I suspect, however, someone on the Jackson case got a phone call from somebody in the DOJ suggesting that day would be an excellent day to make a bust. And the same person then called Fox and CNN. The timing is timeous, to say the least. In any case, the conspiracy loop is complete. Four more years.

      Even if they can`t manufacture any propitious good news, such as the capture of a prominent terrorist viz. bin Laden or Noam Chomsky, all Bush`s people need to do now is send Bush on a few more quasi-daredevil stunts like his dawn raid on Mesopotamia and make sure they get the footage (News Flash! George Bush gets to Baghdad a day before Hilary Clinton! News Flash! George Bush runs with the bulls at Pamplona!) Then create a national crisis right around election time that requires just exactly the sort of figurehead Bush is, and also keeps voters away from the polls in droves (Abe Lincoln pointed out vis-a-vis wartime presidencies that "you don`t change horses in midstream", by which he may have meant `horseshit`, but obiter dicta). Finally, they need to throw in a celebrity scandal whenever a real story breaks that doesn`t suit them. The day Bush is impeached, expect Brad Pitt to be arrested while masturbating to a Richard Simmons exercise tape and Britney Spears to be found strangled to death in Ben Affleck`s garage).

      Alert readers, and you know who you are, will suggest that there is a fourth conspiracy here: the rigging of the voting machines. All the Neocons need is low voter turnout and a close race, and with the machines under the control of Republican operatives, the election can be snatched simply by altering the required few thousand digital ballots. What about that conspiracy? Bad news, fellow humans. That`s not a conspiracy. It happened in 2002, and it will happen again in 2004. I`m only talking about unfounded speculation here. Or is peculation the word I want?

      Ben Tripp is a screenwriter and cartoonist. Ben also has a lot of outrageously priced crap for sale here. If his writing starts to grate on your nerves, buy some and maybe he`ll flee to Mexico. If all else fails, he can be reached at: credel@earthlink.net
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 21:10:19
      Beitrag Nr. 10.200 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 21:23:09
      Beitrag Nr. 10.201 ()
      Monday, December 8th, 2003
      Saving President Bush: Send in James Baker


      Watch 256k stream
      http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2003/dec/256/d…


      -Watch 128k stream: ----------------------------------------------------------http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/08/150250---------------------
      When the President’s in trouble there is one man he turns to more than any other: James A. Baker III. He was Bush’s man during the Florida recount, he was in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia just months before the government fell. And as the Iraq situation worsens Bush has now named Baker as his de facto Secretary of State in Iraq. We speak with investigative journalist Greg Palast, author Dan Briody and editor Mark Ames.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Last week, President Bush appointed former Secretary of State James Baker as his envoy for restructuring Iraq’s more than $120 billion in foreign debt. Baker will be dispatched in his own U.S. government plane as a special presidential envoy to deal with heads of state in Asia, Europe and the Persian Gulf. He will report directly to President Bush.
      Baker is a lawyer-politician who is a former White House Chief of Staff, Treasury Secretary, Secretary of State and various other things. He is a trusted friend of the Bush family and has been called up before in times of political need. He ran Bush Senior’s presidential campaigns and was President George W Bush’s man in Florida during the recount in 2000.

      Baker is now a senior partner in the law firm of Baker Botts, which is deeply involved in the fight for the oil and gas of the Caspian Sea and is senior counselor to the powerful investment firm the Carlyle Group. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Baker was reportedly at a Carlyle investor conference with members of the bin Laden family in the Ritz Carlton in Washington D.C. And his law firm Baker Botts is defending the Saudi government in a lawsuit filed by the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

      This past July, Baker was sent out to Georgia to lecture its President, Eduard Shevardnadze, about the need to ensure that the upcoming parliamentary elections were "free and fair." Fast forward four months and Shevardnadze has been overthrown in a so-called “Velvet Revolution.”

      Today we take a look at the many faces of James Baker.


      Greg Palast, investigative reporter with the BBC and author of the books The Best Democracy Money can Buy and Democracy and Regulation.
      Dan Briody, author of The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group.
      Mark Ames, editor of the Moscow alternative newspaper The eXile. He wrote an article from Tiblisi, Georgia called "Georgia in the Crunch."
      To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, call 1 (800) 881-2359.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 21:26:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10.202 ()


      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.12.03 23:44:31
      Beitrag Nr. 10.203 ()
      http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031215fa_fact

      MOVING TARGETS
      by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
      Will the counter-insurgency plan in Iraq repeat the mistakes of Vietnam?
      Issue of 2003-12-15
      Posted 2003-12-08
      The Bush Administration has authorized a major escalation of the Special Forces covert war in Iraq. In interviews over the past month, American officials and former officials said that the main target was a hard-core group of Baathists who are believed to be behind much of the underground insurgency against the soldiers of the United States and its allies. A new Special Forces group, designated Task Force 121, has been assembled from Army Delta Force members, Navy seals, and C.I.A. paramilitary operatives, with many additional personnel ordered to report by January. Its highest priority is the neutralization of the Baathist insurgents, by capture or assassination.

      The revitalized Special Forces mission is a policy victory for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has struggled for two years to get the military leadership to accept the strategy of what he calls “Manhunts”—a phrase that he has used both publicly and in internal Pentagon communications. Rumsfeld has had to change much of the Pentagon’s leadership to get his way. “Knocking off two regimes allows us to do extraordinary things,” a Pentagon adviser told me, referring to Afghanistan and Iraq.

      One step the Pentagon took was to seek active and secret help in the war against the Iraqi insurgency from Israel, America’s closest ally in the Middle East. According to American and Israeli military and intelligence officials, Israeli commandos and intelligence units have been working closely with their American counterparts at the Special Forces training base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and in Israel to help them prepare for operations in Iraq. Israeli commandos are expected to serve as ad-hoc advisers—again, in secret—when full-field operations begin. (Neither the Pentagon nor Israeli diplomats would comment. “No one wants to talk about this,” an Israeli official told me. “It’s incendiary. Both governments have decided at the highest level that it is in their interests to keep a low profile on U.S.-Israeli coöperation” on Iraq.) The critical issue, American and Israeli officials agree, is intelligence. There is much debate about whether targeting a large number of individuals is a practical—or politically effective—way to bring about stability in Iraq, especially given the frequent failure of American forces to obtain consistent and reliable information there.

      Americans in the field are trying to solve that problem by developing a new source of information: they plan to assemble teams drawn from the upper ranks of the old Iraqi intelligence services and train them to penetrate the insurgency. The idea is for the infiltrators to provide information about individual insurgents for the Americans to act on. A former C.I.A. station chief described the strategy in simple terms: “U.S. shooters and Iraqi intelligence.” He added, “There are Iraqis in the intelligence business who have a better idea, and we’re tapping into them. We have to resuscitate Iraqi intelligence, holding our nose, and have Delta and agency shooters break down doors and take them”—the insurgents—“out.”

      A former intelligence official said that getting inside the Baathist leadership could be compared to “fighting your way into a coconut—you bang away and bang away until you find a soft spot, and then you can clean it out.” An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad said, “The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We’re going to have to play their game. Guerrilla versus guerrilla. Terrorism versus terrorism. We’ve got to scare the Iraqis into submission.”



      In Washington, there is now widespread agreement on one point: the need for a new American approach to Iraq. There is also uniform criticism of the military’s current response to the growing American casualty lists. One former Pentagon official who worked extensively with the Special Forces command, and who favors the new military initiative, said, “We’ve got this large conventional force sitting there, and getting their ass shot off, and what we’re doing is counterproductive. We’re sending mixed signals.” The problem with the way the U.S. has been fighting the Baathist leadership, he said, is “(a) we’ve got no intelligence, and (b) we’re too squeamish to operate in this part of the world.” Referring to the American retaliation against a suspected mortar site, the former official said, “Instead of destroying an empty soccer field, why not impress me by sneaking in a sniper team and killing them while they’re setting up a mortar? We do need a more unconventional response, but it’s going to be messy.”

      Inside the Pentagon, it is now understood that simply bringing in or killing Saddam Hussein and his immediate circle—those who appeared in the Bush Administration’s famed “deck of cards”—will not stop the insurgency. The new Special Forces operation is aimed instead at the broad middle of the Baathist underground. But many of the officials I spoke to were skeptical of the Administration’s plans. Many of them fear that the proposed operation—called “preëmptive manhunting” by one Pentagon adviser—has the potential to turn into another Phoenix Program. Phoenix was the code name for a counter-insurgency program that the U.S. adopted during the Vietnam War, in which Special Forces teams were sent out to capture or assassinate Vietnamese believed to be working with or sympathetic to the Vietcong. In choosing targets, the Americans relied on information supplied by South Vietnamese Army officers and village chiefs. The operation got out of control. According to official South Vietnamese statistics, Phoenix claimed nearly forty-one thousand victims between 1968 and 1972; the U.S. counted more than twenty thousand in the same time span. Some of those assassinated had nothing to do with the war against America but were targeted because of private grievances. William E. Colby, the C.I.A. officer who took charge of the Phoenix Program in 1968 (he eventually became C.I.A. director), later acknowledged to Congress that “a lot of things were done that should not have been done.”

      The former Special Forces official warned that the problem with head-hunting is that you have to be sure “you’re hunting the right heads.” Speaking of the now coöperative former Iraqi intelligence officials, he said, “These guys have their own agenda. Will we be doing hits on grudges? When you set up host-nation elements”—units composed of Iraqis, rather than Americans—“it’s hard not to have them going off to do what they want to do. You have to keep them on a short leash.”

      The former official says that the Baathist leadership apparently relies on “face-to-face communications” in planning terrorist attacks. This makes the insurgents less vulnerable to one of the Army’s most secret Special Forces units, known as Grey Fox, which has particular expertise in interception and other technical means of intelligence-gathering. “These guys are too smart to touch cell phones or radio,” the former official said. “It’s all going to succeed or fail spectacularly based on human intelligence.”

      A former C.I.A. official with extensive Middle East experience identified one of the key players on the new American-Iraqi intelligence team as Farouq Hijazi, a Saddam loyalist who served for many years as the director of external operations for the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence service. He has been in custody since late April. The C.I.A. man said that over the past few months Hijazi “has cut a deal,” and American officials “are using him to reactivate the old Iraqi intelligence network.” He added, “My Iraqi friends say he will honor the deal—but only to the letter, and not to the spirit.” He said that although the Mukhabarat was a good security service, capable, in particular, of protecting Saddam Hussein from overthrow or assassination, it was “a lousy intelligence service.”

      The official went on, “It’s not the way we usually play ball, but if you see a couple of your guys get blown away it changes things. We did the American things—and we’ve been the nice guy. Now we’re going to be the bad guy, and being the bad guy works.”

      Told of such comments, the Pentagon adviser, who is an expert on unconventional war, expressed dismay. “There are people saying all sorts of wild things about Manhunts,” he said. “But they aren’t at the policy level. It’s not a no-holds policy, and it shouldn’t be. I’m as tough as anybody, but we’re also a democratic society, and we don’t fight terror with terror. There will be a lot of close controls—do’s and don’ts and rules of engagement.” The adviser added, “The problem is that we’ve not penetrated the bad guys. The Baath Party is run like a cell system. It’s like penetrating the Vietcong—we never could do it.”



      The rising star in Rumsfeld’s Pentagon is Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, who has been deeply involved in developing the new Special Forces approach. Cambone, who earned a doctorate in political science from Claremont Graduate University in 1982, served as staff director for a 1998 committee, headed by Rumsfeld, that warned in its report of an emerging ballistic-missile threat to the United States and argued that intelligence agencies should be willing to go beyond the data at hand in their analyses. Cambone, in his confirmation hearings, in February, told the Senate that consumers of intelligence assessments must ask questions of the analysts—“how they arrived at those conclusions and what the sources of the information were.” This approach was championed by Rumsfeld. It came under attack, however, when the Administration’s predictions about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and the potential for insurgency failed to be realized, and the Pentagon civilians were widely accused of politicizing intelligence. (A month after the fall of Baghdad, Cambone was the first senior Pentagon official to publicly claim, wrongly, as it turned out, that a captured Iraqi military truck might be a mobile biological-weapons laboratory.)

      Cambone also shares Rumsfeld’s views on how to fight terrorism. They both believe that the United States needs to become far more proactive in combatting terrorism, searching for terrorist leaders around the world and eliminating them. And Cambone, like Rumsfeld, has been frustrated by the reluctance of the military leadership to embrace the manhunting mission. Since his confirmation, he has been seeking operational authority over Special Forces. “Rumsfeld’s been looking for somebody to have all the answers, and Steve is the guy,” a former high-level Pentagon official told me. “He has more direct access to Rummy than anyone else.”

      As Cambone’s influence has increased, that of Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy, has diminished. In September, 2001, Feith set up a special unit known as the Office of Special Plans. The office, directed by civilians who, like Feith, had neoconservative views, played a major role in the intelligence and planning leading up to the March invasion of Iraq. “There is finger-pointing going on,” a prominent Republican lobbyist explained. “And the neocons are in retreat.”

      One of the key planners of the Special Forces offensive is Lieutenant General William (Jerry) Boykin, Cambone’s military assistant. After a meeting with Rumsfeld early last summer—they got along “like two old warriors,” the Pentagon consultant said—Boykin postponed his retirement, which had been planned for June, and took the Pentagon job, which brought him a third star. In that post, the Pentagon adviser told me, Boykin has been “an important piece” of the planned escalation. In October, the Los Angeles Times reported that Boykin, while giving Sunday-morning talks in uniform to church groups, had repeatedly equated the Muslim world with Satan. Last June, according to the paper, he told a congregation in Oregon that “Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army.” Boykin praised President Bush as a “man who prays in the Oval Office,” and declared that Bush was “not elected” President but “appointed by God.” The Muslim world hates America, he said, “because we are a nation of believers.”

      There were calls in the press and from Congress for Boykin’s dismissal, but Rumsfeld made it clear that he wanted to keep his man in the job. Initially, he responded to the Times report by praising the General’s “outstanding record” and telling journalists that he had neither seen the text of Boykin’s statements nor watched the videotape that had been made of one of his presentations. “There are a lot of things that are said by people in the military, or in civilian life, or in the Congress, or in the executive branch that are their views,” he said. “We’re a free people. And that’s the wonderful thing about our country.” He added, with regard to the tape, “I just simply can’t comment on what he said, because I haven’t seen it.” Four days later, Rumsfeld said that he had viewed the tape. “It had a lot of very difficult-to-understand words with subtitles which I was not able to verify,” he said at a news conference, according to the official transcript. “So I remain inexpert”—the transcript notes that he “chuckles” at that moment—“on precisely what he said.” Boykin’s comments are now under official review.

      Boykin has been involved in other controversies as well. He was the Army combat commander in Mogadishu in 1993, when eighteen Americans were slain during the disastrous mission made famous by Mark Bowden’s book “Black Hawk Down.” Earlier that year, Boykin, a colonel at the time, led an eight-man Delta Force that was assigned to help a Colombian police unit track down the notorious drug dealer Pablo Escobar. Boykin’s team was barred by law from providing any lethal assistance without Presidential approval, but there was suspicion in the Pentagon that it was planning to take part in the assassination of Escobar, with the support of American Embassy officials in Colombia. The book “Killing Pablo,” an account, also by Mark Bowden, of the hunt for Escobar, describes how senior officials in the Pentagon’s chain of command became convinced that Boykin, with the knowledge of his Special Forces superiors, had exceeded his authority and intended to violate the law. They wanted Boykin’s unit pulled out. It wasn’t. Escobar was shot dead on the roof of a barrio apartment building in Medellín. The Colombian police were credited with getting their man, but, Bowden wrote, “within the special ops community . . . Pablo’s death was regarded as a successful mission for Delta, and legend has it that its operators were in on the kill.”

      “That’s what those guys did,” a retired general who monitored Boykin’s operations in Colombia told me. “I’ve seen pictures of Escobar’s body that you don’t get from a long-range telescope lens. They were taken by guys on the assault team.” (Bush Administration officials in the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon, including General Boykin, did not respond to requests for comment.)

      Morris Busby, who was the American Ambassador to Colombia in 1993 (he is now retired), vigorously defended Boykin. “I think the world of Jerry Boykin, and have the utmost respect for him. I’ve known him for fifteen years and spent hours and hours with the guy, and never heard him mention religion or God.” The retired general also praised Boykin as “one of those guys you’d love to have in a war because he’s not afraid to die.” But, he added, “when you get to three stars you’ve got to think through what you’re doing.” Referring to Boykin and others involved in the Special Forces planning, he added, “These guys are going to get a bunch of guys killed and then give them a bunch of medals.”



      The American-Israeli liaison on Iraq amounts to a tutorial on how to dismantle an insurgency. One former Israeli military-intelligence officer summarized the core lesson this way: “How to do targeted killing, which is very relevant to the success of the war, and what the United States is going to have to do.” He told me that the Americans were being urged to emulate the Israeli Army’s small commando units, known as Mist’aravim, which operate undercover inside the West Bank and Gaza Strip. “They can approach a house and pounce,” the former officer said. In the Israeli view, he added, the Special Forces units must learn “how to maintain a network of informants.” Such a network, he said, has made it possible for Israel to penetrate the West Bank and Gaza Strip organizations controlled by groups such as Hamas, and to assassinate or capture potential suicide bombers along with many of the people who recruit and train them.

      On the other hand, the former officer said, “Israel has, in many ways, been too successful, and has killed or captured so many mid-ranking facilitators on the operational level in the West Bank that Hamas now consists largely of isolated cells that carry out terrorist attacks against Israel on their own.” He went on, “There is no central control over many of the suicide bombers. We’re trying to tell the Americans that they don’t want to eliminate the center. The key is not to have freelancers out there.”

      Many regional experts, Americans and others, are convinced that the Baathists are still firmly in charge of the insurgency, although they are thought to have little direct connection with Saddam Hussein. An American military analyst who works with the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad told me he has concluded that “mid-ranking Baathists who were muzzled by the patrimonial nature of Saddam’s system have now, with the disappearance of the high-ranking members, risen to control the insurgency.” He added that after the American attack and several weeks “of being like deer in headlights,” these Baathists had become organized, and were directing and leading operations against Americans. During an interview in Washington, a senior Arab diplomat noted, “We do not believe that the resistance is loyal to Saddam. Yes, the Baathists have reorganized, not for political reasons but because of the terrible decisions made by Jerry Bremer”—the director of the C.P.A. “The Iraqis really want to make you pay the price,” the diplomat said. “Killing Saddam will not end it.”

      Similarly, a Middle Eastern businessman who has advised senior Bush Administration officials told me that the reorganized Baath Party is “extremely active, working underground with permanent internal communications. And without Saddam.” Baath party leaders, he added, expect Saddam to issue a public statement of self-criticism, “telling of his mistakes and his excesses,” including his reliance on his sons.

      There is disagreement, inevitably, on the extent of Baathist control. The former Israeli military-intelligence officer said, “Most of the firepower comes from the Baathists, and they know where the weapons are kept. But many of the shooters are ethnic and tribal. Iraq is very factionalized now, and within the Sunni community factionalism goes deep.” He added, “Unless you settle this, any effort at reconstruction in the center is hopeless.”

      The American military analyst agreed that the current emphasis on Baathist control “overlooks the nationalist and tribal angle.” For example, he said, the anti-coalition forces in Falluja, a major center of opposition, are “driven primarily by the sheikhs and mosques, Islam, clerics, and nationalism.” The region, he went on, contains “tens of thousands of unemployed former military officers and enlistees who hang around the coffee shops and restaurants of their relatives; they plot, plan, and give and receive instructions; at night they go out on their missions.”

      This military analyst, like many officials I spoke to, also raised questions about the military’s more conventional tactics—the aggressive program, code-named Iron Hammer, of bombings, nighttime raids, and mass arrests aimed at trouble spots in Sunni-dominated central Iraq. The insurgents, he told me, had already developed a response. “Their S.O.P.”—standard operating procedure—“now is to go further out, or even to other towns, so that American retribution does not fall on their locale. Instead, the Americans take it out on the city where the incident happened, and in the process they succeed in making more enemies.”

      The brazen Iraqi attacks on two separate American convoys in Samarra, on November 30th, provided further evidence of the diversity of the opposition to the occupation. Samarra has been a center of intense anti-Saddam feelings, according to Ahmed S. Hashim, an expert on terrorism who is a professor of strategic studies at the U.S. Naval War College. In an essay published in August by the Middle East Institute, Hashim wrote, “Many Samarra natives—who had served with distinction in the Baath Party and the armed forces—were purged or executed during the course of the three decades of rule by Saddam and his cronies from the rival town of Tikrit.” He went on, “The type of U.S. force structure in Iraq—heavy armored and mechanized units—and the psychological disposition of these forces which have been in Iraq for months is simply not conducive to the successful waging of counter-insurgency warfare.”



      The majority of the Bush Administration’s manhunting missions remain classified, but one earlier mission, in Afghanistan, had mixed results at best. Last November, an Al Qaeda leader named Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi was killed when an unmanned Predator reconnaissance aircraft fired a Hellfire missile at his automobile in Yemen. Five passengers in the automobile were also killed, and it was subsequently reported that two previous Predator missions in Yemen had been called off at the last moment when it was learned that the occupants of suspect vehicles were local Bedouins, and not Al Qaeda members.

      Since then, an adviser to the Special Forces command has told me, infighting among the various senior military commands has made it difficult for Special Forces teams on alert to take immediate advantage of time-sensitive intelligence. Rumsfeld repeatedly criticized Air Force General Charles Holland, a four-star Special Forces commander who has just retired, for his reluctance to authorize commando raids without specific, or “actionable,” intelligence. Rumsfeld has also made a systematic effort to appoint Special Forces advocates to the top military jobs. Another former Special Forces commander, Army General Peter Schoomaker, was brought out of retirement in July and named Army Chief of Staff. The new civilian Assistant Secretary for Special Operations in the Pentagon is Thomas O’Connell, an Army veteran who served in the Phoenix program in Vietnam, and who, in the early eighties, ran Grey Fox, the Army’s secret commando unit.

      Early in November, the Times reported the existence of Task Force 121, and said that it was authorized to take action throughout the region, if necessary, in pursuit of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and other terrorists. (The task force is commanded by Air Force Brigadier General Lyle Koenig, an experienced Special Forces helicopter pilot.) At that point, the former Special Forces official told me, the troops were “chasing the deck of cards. Their job was to find Saddam, period.” Other Special Forces, in Afghanistan, were targeting what is known as the A.Q.S.L., the Al Qaeda Senior Leadership List.

      The task force’s search for Saddam was, from the beginning, daunting. According to Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector, it may have been fatally flawed as well. From 1994 to 1998, Ritter directed a special U.N. unit that eavesdropped on many of Saddam Hussein’s private telephone communications. “The high-profile guys around Saddam were the murafaqin, his most loyal companions, who could stand next to him carrying a gun,” Ritter told me. “But now he’s gone to a different tier—the tribes. He has released the men from his most sensitive units and let them go back to their tribes, and we don’t know where they are. The manifests of those units are gone; they’ve all been destroyed.” Ritter added, “Guys like Farouq Hijazi can deliver some of the Baath Party cells, and he knows where some of the intelligence people are. But he can’t get us into the tribal hierarchy.” The task force, in any event, has shifted its focus from the hunt for Saddam as it is increasingly distracted by the spreading guerrilla war.

      In addition to the Special Forces initiative, the military is also exploring other approaches to suppressing the insurgency. The Washington Post reported last week that the American authorities in Baghdad had agreed, with some reluctance, to the formation of an Iraqi-led counter-terrorism militia composed of troops from the nation’s five largest political parties. The paramilitary unit, totalling some eight hundred troops or so, would “identify and pursue insurgents” who had eluded arrest, the newspaper said. The group’s initial missions would be monitored and approved by American commanders, but eventually it would operate independently.

      Task Force 121’s next major problem may prove to be Iran. There is a debate going on inside the Administration about American and Israeli intelligence that suggests that the Shiite-dominated Iranian government may be actively aiding the Sunni-led insurgency in Iraq—“pulling the strings on the puppet,” as one former intelligence official put it. Many in the intelligence community are skeptical of this analysis—the Pentagon adviser compared it to “the Chalabi stuff,” referring to now discredited prewar intelligence on W.M.D. supplied by Iraqi defectors. But I was told by several officials that the intelligence was considered to be highly reliable by civilians in the Defense Department. A former intelligence official said that one possible response under consideration was for the United States to train and equip an Iraqi force capable of staging cross-border raids. The American goal, he said, would be to “make the cost of supporting the Baathists so dear that the Iranians would back off,” adding, “If it begins to look like another Iran-Iraq war, that’s another story.”



      The requirement that America’s Special Forces units operate in secrecy, a former senior coalition adviser in Baghdad told me, has provided an additional incentive for increasing their presence in Iraq. The Special Forces in-country numbers are not generally included in troop totals. Bush and Rumsfeld have insisted that more American troops are not needed, but that position was challenged by many senior military officers in private conversations with me. “You need more people,” the former adviser, a retired admiral, said. “But you can’t add them, because Rummy’s taken a position. So you invent a force that won’t be counted.”

      At present, there is no legislation that requires the President to notify Congress before authorizing an overseas Special Forces mission. The Special Forces have been expanded enormously in the Bush Administration. The 2004 Pentagon budget provides more than six and a half billion dollars for their activities—a thirty-four-per-cent increase over 2003. A recent congressional study put the number of active and reserve Special Forces troops at forty-seven thousand, and has suggested that the appropriate House and Senate committees needed to debate the “proper overall role” of Special Forces in the global war on terrorism.

      The former intelligence official depicted the Delta and seal teams as “force multipliers”—small units that can do the work of much larger ones and thereby increase the power of the operation as a whole. He also implicitly recognized that such operations would become more and more common; when Special Forces target the Baathists, he said, “it’s technically not assassination—it’s normal combat operations.”
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 00:01:54
      Beitrag Nr. 10.204 ()
      M A R C H 1 9 9 2

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/barberf.htm

      The two axial principles of our age -- tribalism and globalism -- clash at every point except one: they may both be threatening to democracy
      by Benjamin R. Barber

      Just beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political futures -- both bleak, neither democratic. The first is a retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe -- a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and civic mutuality. The second is being borne in on us by the onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast food -- with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald`s, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous global network: one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce. The planet is falling precipitantly apart AND coming reluctantly together at the very same moment.


      These two tendencies are sometimes visible in the same countries at the same instant: thus Yugoslavia, clamoring just recently to join the New Europe, is exploding into fragments; India is trying to live up to its reputation as the world`s largest integral democracy while powerful new fundamentalist parties like the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, along with nationalist assassins, are imperiling its hard-won unity. States are breaking up or joining up: the Soviet Union has disappeared almost overnight, its parts forming new unions with one another or with like-minded nationalities in neighboring states. The old interwar national state based on territory and political sovereignty looks to be a mere transitional development.


      The tendencies of what I am here calling the forces of Jihad and the forces of McWorld operate with equal strength in opposite directions, the one driven by parochial hatreds, the other by universalizing markets, the one re-creating ancient subnational and ethnic borders from within, the other making national borders porous from without. They have one thing in common: neither offers much hope to citizens looking for practical ways to govern themselves democratically. If the global future is to pit Jihad`s centrifugal whirlwind against McWorld`s centripetal black hole, the outcome is unlikely to be democratic -- or so I will argue.



      McWorld, or the Globalization of Politics


      Four imperatives make up the dynamic of McWorld: a market imperative, a resource imperative, an information-technology imperative, and an ecological imperative. By shrinking the world and diminishing the salience of national borders, these imperatives have in combination achieved a considerable victory over factiousness and particularism, and not least of all over their most virulent traditional form -- nationalism. It is the realists who are now Europeans, the utopians who dream nostalgically of a resurgent England or Germany, perhaps even a resurgent Wales or Saxony. Yesterday`s wishful cry for one world has yielded to the reality of McWorld.


      THE MARKET IMPERATIVE. Marxist and Leninist theories of imperialism assumed that the quest for ever-expanding markets would in time compel nation-based capitalist economies to push against national boundaries in search of an international economic imperium. Whatever else has happened to the scientistic predictions of Marxism, in this domain they have proved farsighted. All national economies are now vulnerable to the inroads of larger, transnational markets within which trade is free, currencies are convertible, access to banking is open, and contracts are enforceable under law. In Europe, Asia, Africa, the South Pacific, and the Americas such markets are eroding national sovereignty and giving rise to entities -- international banks, trade associations, transnational lobbies like OPEC and Greenpeace, world news services like CNN and the BBC, and multinational corporations that increasingly lack a meaningful national identity -- that neither reflect nor respect nationhood as an organizing or regulative principle.


      The market imperative has also reinforced the quest for international peace and stability, requisites of an efficient international economy. Markets are enemies of parochialism, isolation, fractiousness, war. Market psychology attenuates the psychology of ideological and religious cleavages and assumes a concord among producers and consumers -- categories that ill fit narrowly conceived national or religious cultures. Shopping has little tolerance for blue laws, whether dictated by pub-closing British paternalism, Sabbath-observing Jewish Orthodox fundamentalism, or no-Sunday-liquor-sales Massachusetts puritanism. In the context of common markets, international law ceases to be a vision of justice and becomes a workaday framework for getting things done -- enforcing contracts, ensuring that governments abide by deals, regulating trade and currency relations, and so forth.


      Common markets demand a common language, as well as a common currency, and they produce common behaviors of the kind bred by cosmopolitan city life everywhere. Commercial pilots, computer programmers, international bankers, media specialists, oil riggers, entertainment celebrities, ecology experts, demographers, accountants, professors, athletes -- these compose a new breed of men and women for whom religion, culture, and nationality can seem only marginal elements in a working identity. Although sociologists of everyday life will no doubt continue to distinguish a Japanese from an American mode, shopping has a common signature throughout the world. Cynics might even say that some of the recent revolutions in Eastern Europe have had as their true goal not liberty and the right to vote but well-paying jobs and the right to shop (although the vote is proving easier to acquire than consumer goods). The market imperative is, then, plenty powerful; but, notwithstanding some of the claims made for "democratic capitalism," it is not identical with the democratic imperative.


      THE RESOURCE IMPERATIVE. Democrats once dreamed of societies whose political autonomy rested firmly on economic independence. The Athenians idealized what they called autarky, and tried for a while to create a way of life simple and austere enough to make the polis genuinely self-sufficient. To be free meant to be independent of any other community or polis. Not even the Athenians were able to achieve autarky, however: human nature, it turns out, is dependency. By the time of Pericles, Athenian politics was inextricably bound up with a flowering empire held together by naval power and commerce -- an empire that, even as it appeared to enhance Athenian might, ate away at Athenian independence and autarky. Master and slave, it turned out, were bound together by mutual insufficiency.


      The dream of autarky briefly engrossed nineteenth-century America as well, for the underpopulated, endlessly bountiful land, the cornucopia of natural resources, and the natural barriers of a continent walled in by two great seas led many to believe that America could be a world unto itself. Given this past, it has been harder for Americans than for most to accept the inevitability of interdependence. But the rapid depletion of resources even in a country like ours, where they once seemed inexhaustible, and the maldistribution of arable soil and mineral resources on the planet, leave even the wealthiest societies ever more resource-dependent and many other nations in permanently desperate straits.


      Every nation, it turns out, needs something another nation has; some nations have almost nothing they need.


      THE INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY IMPERATIVE. Enlightenment science and the technologies derived from it are inherently universalizing. They entail a quest for descriptive principles of general application, a search for universal solutions to particular problems, and an unswerving embrace of objectivity and impartiality.


      Scientific progress embodies and depends on open communication, a common discourse rooted in rationality, collaboration, and an easy and regular flow and exchange of information. Such ideals can be hypocritical covers for power-mongering by elites, and they may be shown to be wanting in many other ways, but they are entailed by the very idea of science and they make science and globalization practical allies.


      Business, banking, and commerce all depend on information flow and are facilitated by new communication technologies. The hardware of these technologies tends to be systemic and integrated -- computer, television, cable, satellite, laser, fiber-optic, and microchip technologies combining to create a vast interactive communications and information network that can potentially give every person on earth access to every other person, and make every datum, every byte, available to every set of eyes. If the automobile was, as George Ball once said (when he gave his blessing to a Fiat factory in the Soviet Union during the Cold War), "an ideology on four wheels," then electronic telecommunication and information systems are an ideology at 186,000 miles per second -- which makes for a very small planet in a very big hurry. Individual cultures speak particular languages; commerce and science increasingly speak English; the whole world speaks logarithms and binary mathematics.


      Moreover, the pursuit of science and technology asks for, even compels, open societies. Satellite footprints do not respect national borders; telephone wires penetrate the most closed societies. With photocopying and then fax machines having infiltrated Soviet universities and samizdat literary circles in the eighties, and computer modems having multiplied like rabbits in communism`s bureaucratic warrens thereafter, glasnost could not be far behind. In their social requisites, secrecy and science are enemies.


      The new technology`s software is perhaps even more globalizing than its hardware. The information arm of international commerce`s sprawling body reaches out and touches distinct nations and parochial cultures, and gives them a common face chiseled in Hollywood, on Madison Avenue, and in Silicon Valley. Throughout the 1980s one of the most-watched television programs in South Africa was The Cosby Show. The demise of apartheid was already in production. Exhibitors at the 1991 Cannes film festival expressed growing anxiety over the "homogenization" and "Americanization" of the global film industry when, for the third year running, American films dominated the awards ceremonies. America has dominated the world`s popular culture for much longer, and much more decisively. In November of 1991 Switzerland`s once insular culture boasted best-seller lists featuring Terminator 2 as the No. 1 movie, Scarlett as the No. 1 book, and Prince`s Diamonds and Pearls as the No. 1 record album. No wonder the Japanese are buying Hollywood film studios even faster than Americans are buying Japanese television sets. This kind of software supremacy may in the long term be far more important than hardware superiority, because culture has become more potent than armaments. What is the power of the Pentagon compared with Disneyland? Can the Sixth Fleet keep up with CNN? McDonald`s in Moscow and Coke in China will do more to create a global culture than military colonization ever could. It is less the goods than the brand names that do the work, for they convey life-style images that alter perception and challenge behavior. They make up the seductive software of McWorld`s common (at times much too common) soul.


      Yet in all this high-tech commercial world there is nothing that looks particularly democratic. It lends itself to surveillance as well as liberty, to new forms of manipulation and covert control as well as new kinds of participation, to skewed, unjust market outcomes as well as greater productivity. The consumer society and the open society are not quite synonymous. Capitalism and democracy have a relationship, but it is something less than a marriage. An efficient free market after all requires that consumers be free to vote their dollars on competing goods, not that citizens be free to vote their values and beliefs on competing political candidates and programs. The free market flourished in junta-run Chile, in military-governed Taiwan and Korea, and, earlier, in a variety of autocratic European empires as well as their colonial possessions.


      THE ECOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE. The impact of globalization on ecology is a cliche even to world leaders who ignore it. We know well enough that the German forests can be destroyed by Swiss and Italians driving gas-guzzlers fueled by leaded gas. We also know that the planet can be asphyxiated by greenhouse gases because Brazilian farmers want to be part of the twentieth century and are burning down tropical rain forests to clear a little land to plough, and because Indonesians make a living out of converting their lush jungle into toothpicks for fastidious Japanese diners, upsetting the delicate oxygen balance and in effect puncturing our global lungs. Yet this ecological consciousness has meant not only greater awareness but also greater inequality, as modernized nations try to slam the door behind them, saying to developing nations, "The world cannot afford your modernization; ours has wrung it dry!"


      Each of the four imperatives just cited is transnational, transideological, and transcultural. Each applies impartially to Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists; to democrats and totalitarians; to capitalists and socialists. The Enlightenment dream of a universal rational society has to a remarkable degree been realized -- but in a form that is commercialized, homogenized, depoliticized, bureaucratized, and, of course, radically incomplete, for the movement toward McWorld is in competition with forces of global breakdown, national dissolution, and centrifugal corruption. These forces, working in the opposite direction, are the essence of what I call Jihad.



      Jihad, or the Lebanonization of the World


      OPEC, the World Bank, the United Nations, the International Red Cross, the multinational corporation...there are scores of institutions that reflect globalization. But they often appear as ineffective reactors to the world`s real actors: national states and, to an ever greater degree, subnational factions in permanent rebellion against uniformity and integration -- even the kind represented by universal law and justice. The headlines feature these players regularly: they are cultures, not countries; parts, not wholes; sects, not religions; rebellious factions and dissenting minorities at war not just with globalism but with the traditional nation-state. Kurds, Basques, Puerto Ricans, Ossetians, East Timoreans, Quebecois, the Catholics of Northern Ireland, Abkhasians, Kurile Islander Japanese, the Zulus of Inkatha, Catalonians, Tamils, and, of course, Palestinians -- people without countries, inhabiting nations not their own, seeking smaller worlds within borders that will seal them off from modernity.


      A powerful irony is at work here. Nationalism was once a force of integration and unification, a movement aimed at bringing together disparate clans, tribes, and cultural fragments under new, assimilationist flags. But as Ortega y Gasset noted more than sixty years ago, having won its victories, nationalism changed its strategy. In the 1920s, and again today, it is more often a reactionary and divisive force, pulverizing the very nations it once helped cement together. The force that creates nations is "inclusive," Ortega wrote in The Revolt of the Masses. "In periods of consolidation, nationalism has a positive value, and is a lofty standard. But in Europe everything is more than consolidated, and nationalism is nothing but a mania..."


      This mania has left the post-Cold War world smoldering with hot wars; the international scene is little more unified than it was at the end of the Great War, in Ortega`s own time. There were more than thirty wars in progress last year, most of them ethnic, racial, tribal, or religious in character, and the list of unsafe regions doesn`t seem to be getting any shorter. Some new world order!


      The aim of many of these small-scale wars is to redraw boundaries, to implode states and resecure parochial identities: to escape McWorld`s dully insistent imperatives. The mood is that of Jihad: war not as an instrument of policy but as an emblem of identity, an expression of community, an end in itself. Even where there is no shooting war, there is fractiousness, secession, and the quest for ever smaller communities. Add to the list of dangerous countries those at risk: In Switzerland and Spain, Jurassian and Basque separatists still argue the virtues of ancient identities, sometimes in the language of bombs. Hyperdisintegration in the former Soviet Union may well continue unabated -- not just a Ukraine independent from the Soviet Union but a Bessarabian Ukraine independent from the Ukrainian republic; not just Russia severed from the defunct union but Tatarstan severed from Russia. Yugoslavia makes even the disunited, ex-Soviet, nonsocialist republics that were once the Soviet Union look integrated, its sectarian fatherlands springing up within factional motherlands like weeds within weeds within weeds. Kurdish independence would threaten the territorial integrity of four Middle Eastern nations. Well before the current cataclysm Soviet Georgia made a claim for autonomy from the Soviet Union, only to be faced with its Ossetians (164,000 in a republic of 5.5 million) demanding their own self-determination within Georgia. The Abkhasian minority in Georgia has followed suit. Even the good will established by Canada`s once promising Meech Lake protocols is in danger, with Francophone Quebec again threatening the dissolution of the federation. In South Africa the emergence from apartheid was hardly achieved when friction between Inkatha`s Zulus and the African National Congress`s tribally identified members threatened to replace Europeans` racism with an indigenous tribal war. After thirty years of attempted integration using the colonial language (English) as a unifier, Nigeria is now playing with the idea of linguistic multiculturalism -- which could mean the cultural breakup of the nation into hundreds of tribal fragments. Even Saddam Hussein has benefited from the threat of internal Jihad, having used renewed tribal and religious warfare to turn last season`s mortal enemies into reluctant allies of an Iraqi nationhood that he nearly destroyed.


      The passing of communism has torn away the thin veneer of internationalism (workers of the world unite!) to reveal ethnic prejudices that are not only ugly and deep-seated but increasingly murderous. Europe`s old scourge, anti-Semitism, is back with a vengeance, but it is only one of many antagonisms. It appears all too easy to throw the historical gears into reverse and pass from a Communist dictatorship back into a tribal state.


      Among the tribes, religion is also a battlefield. ("Jihad" is a rich word whose generic meaning is "struggle" -- usually the struggle of the soul to avert evil. Strictly applied to religious war, it is used only in reference to battles where the faith is under assault, or battles against a government that denies the practice of Islam. My use here is rhetorical, but does follow both journalistic practice and history.) Remember the Thirty Years War? Whatever forms of Enlightenment universalism might once have come to grace such historically related forms of monotheism as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in many of their modern incarnations they are parochial rather than cosmopolitan, angry rather than loving, proselytizing rather than ecumenical, zealous rather than rationalist, sectarian rather than deistic, ethnocentric rather than universalizing. As a result, like the new forms of hypernationalism, the new expressions of religious fundamentalism are fractious and pulverizing, never integrating. This is religion as the Crusaders knew it: a battle to the death for souls that if not saved will be forever lost.


      The atmospherics of Jihad have resulted in a breakdown of civility in the name of identity, of comity in the name of community. International relations have sometimes taken on the aspect of gang war -- cultural turf battles featuring tribal factions that were supposed to be sublimated as integral parts of large national, economic, postcolonial, and constitutional entities.



      The Darkening Future of Democracy


      These rather melodramatic tableaux vivants do not tell the whole story, however. For all their defects, Jihad and McWorld have their attractions. Yet, to repeat and insist, the attractions are unrelated to democracy. Neither McWorld nor Jihad is remotely democratic in impulse. Neither needs democracy; neither promotes democracy.


      McWorld does manage to look pretty seductive in a world obsessed with Jihad. It delivers peace, prosperity, and relative unity -- if at the cost of independence, community, and identity (which is generally based on difference). The primary political values required by the global market are order and tranquillity, and freedom -- as in the phrases "free trade," "free press," and "free love." Human rights are needed to a degree, but not citizenship or participation -- and no more social justice and equality than are necessary to promote efficient economic production and consumption. Multinational corporations sometimes seem to prefer doing business with local oligarchs, inasmuch as they can take confidence from dealing with the boss on all crucial matters. Despots who slaughter their own populations are no problem, so long as they leave markets in place and refrain from making war on their neighbors (Saddam Hussein`s fatal mistake). In trading partners, predictability is of more value than justice.


      The Eastern European revolutions that seemed to arise out of concern for global democratic values quickly deteriorated into a stampede in the general direction of free markets and their ubiquitous, television-promoted shopping malls. East Germany`s Neues Forum, that courageous gathering of intellectuals, students, and workers which overturned the Stalinist regime in Berlin in 1989, lasted only six months in Germany`s mini-version of McWorld. Then it gave way to money and markets and monopolies from the West. By the time of the first all-German elections, it could scarcely manage to secure three percent of the vote. Elsewhere there is growing evidence that glasnost will go and perestroika -- defined as privatization and an opening of markets to Western bidders -- will stay. So understandably anxious are the new rulers of Eastern Europe and whatever entities are forged from the residues of the Soviet Union to gain access to credit and markets and technology -- McWorld`s flourishing new currencies -- that they have shown themselves willing to trade away democratic prospects in pursuit of them: not just old totalitarian ideologies and command-economy production models but some possible indigenous experiments with a third way between capitalism and socialism, such as economic cooperatives and employee stock-ownership plans, both of which have their ardent supporters in the East.


      Jihad delivers a different set of virtues: a vibrant local identity, a sense of community, solidarity among kinsmen, neighbors, and countrymen, narrowly conceived. But it also guarantees parochialism and is grounded in exclusion. Solidarity is secured through war against outsiders. And solidarity often means obedience to a hierarchy in governance, fanaticism in beliefs, and the obliteration of individual selves in the name of the group. Deference to leaders and intolerance toward outsiders (and toward "enemies within") are hallmarks of tribalism -- hardly the attitudes required for the cultivation of new democratic women and men capable of governing themselves. Where new democratic experiments have been conducted in retribalizing societies, in both Europe and the Third World, the result has often been anarchy, repression, persecution, and the coming of new, noncommunist forms of very old kinds of despotism. During the past year, Havel`s velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia was imperiled by partisans of "Czechland" and of Slovakia as independent entities. India seemed little less rent by Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, and Tamil infighting than it was immediately after the British pulled out, more than forty years ago.


      To the extent that either McWorld or Jihad has a NATURAL politics, it has turned out to be more of an antipolitics. For McWorld, it is the antipolitics of globalism: bureaucratic, technocratic, and meritocratic, focused (as Marx predicted it would be) on the administration of things -- with people, however, among the chief things to be administered. In its politico-economic imperatives McWorld has been guided by laissez-faire market principles that privilege efficiency, productivity, and beneficence at the expense of civic liberty and self-government.


      For Jihad, the antipolitics of tribalization has been explicitly antidemocratic: one-party dictatorship, government by military junta, theocratic fundamentalism -- often associated with a version of the Fuhrerprinzip that empowers an individual to rule on behalf of a people. Even the government of India, struggling for decades to model democracy for a people who will soon number a billion, longs for great leaders; and for every Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, or Rajiv Gandhi taken from them by zealous assassins, the Indians appear to seek a replacement who will deliver them from the lengthy travail of their freedom.



      The Confederal Option


      How can democracy be secured and spread in a world whose primary tendencies are at best indifferent to it (McWorld) and at worst deeply antithetical to it (Jihad)? My guess is that globalization will eventually vanquish retribalization. The ethos of material "civilization" has not yet encountered an obstacle it has been unable to thrust aside. Ortega may have grasped in the 1920s a clue to our own future in the coming millennium.


      "Everyone sees the need of a new principle of life. But as always happens in similar crises -- some people attempt to save the situation by an artificial intensification of the very principle which has led to decay. This is the meaning of the `nationalist` outburst of recent years....things have always gone that way. The last flare, the longest; the last sigh, the deepest. On the very eve of their disappearance there is an intensification of frontiers -- military and economic."


      Jihad may be a last deep sigh before the eternal yawn of McWorld. On the other hand, Ortega was not exactly prescient; his prophecy of peace and internationalism came just before blitzkrieg, world war, and the Holocaust tore the old order to bits. Yet democracy is how we remonstrate with reality, the rebuke our aspirations offer to history. And if retribalization is inhospitable to democracy, there is nonetheless a form of democratic government that can accommodate parochialism and communitarianism, one that can even save them from their defects and make them more tolerant and participatory: decentralized participatory democracy. And if McWorld is indifferent to democracy, there is nonetheless a form of democratic government that suits global markets passably well -- representative government in its federal or, better still, confederal variation.


      With its concern for accountability, the protection of minorities, and the universal rule of law, a confederalized representative system would serve the political needs of McWorld as well as oligarchic bureaucratism or meritocratic elitism is currently doing. As we are already beginning to see, many nations may survive in the long term only as confederations that afford local regions smaller than "nations" extensive jurisdiction. Recommended reading for democrats of the twenty-first century is not the U.S. Constitution or the French Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen but the Articles of Confederation, that suddenly pertinent document that stitched together the thirteen American colonies into what then seemed a too loose confederation of independent states but now appears a new form of political realism, as veterans of Yeltsin`s new Russia and the new Europe created at Maastricht will attest.


      By the same token, the participatory and direct form of democracy that engages citizens in civic activity and civic judgment and goes well beyond just voting and accountability -- the system I have called "strong democracy" -- suits the political needs of decentralized communities as well as theocratic and nationalist party dictatorships have done. Local neighborhoods need not be democratic, but they can be. Real democracy has flourished in diminutive settings: the spirit of liberty, Tocqueville said, is local. Participatory democracy, if not naturally apposite to tribalism, has an undeniable attractiveness under conditions of parochialism.


      Democracy in any of these variations will, however, continue to be obstructed by the undemocratic and antidemocratic trends toward uniformitarian globalism and intolerant retribalization which I have portrayed here. For democracy to persist in our brave new McWorld, we will have to commit acts of conscious political will -- a possibility, but hardly a probability, under these conditions. Political will requires much more than the quick fix of the transfer of institutions. Like technology transfer, institution transfer rests on foolish assumptions about a uniform world of the kind that once fired the imagination of colonial administrators. Spread English justice to the colonies by exporting wigs. Let an East Indian trading company act as the vanguard to Britain`s free parliamentary institutions. Today`s well-intentioned quick-fixers in the National Endowment for Democracy and the Kennedy School of Government, in the unions and foundations and universities zealously nurturing contacts in Eastern Europe and the Third World, are hoping to democratize by long distance. Post Bulgaria a parliament by first-class mail. Fed Ex the Bill of Rights to Sri Lanka. Cable Cambodia some common law.


      Yet Eastern Europe has already demonstrated that importing free political parties, parliaments, and presses cannot establish a democratic civil society; imposing a free market may even have the opposite effect. Democracy grows from the bottom up and cannot be imposed from the top down. Civil society has to be built from the inside out. The institutional superstructure comes last. Poland may become democratic, but then again it may heed the Pope, and prefer to found its politics on its Catholicism, with uncertain consequences for democracy. Bulgaria may become democratic, but it may prefer tribal war. The former Soviet Union may become a democratic confederation, or it may just grow into an anarchic and weak conglomeration of markets for other nations` goods and services.


      Democrats need to seek out indigenous democratic impulses. There is always a desire for self-government, always some expression of participation, accountability, consent, and representation, even in traditional hierarchical societies. These need to be identified, tapped, modified, and incorporated into new democratic practices with an indigenous flavor. The tortoises among the democratizers may ultimately outlive or outpace the hares, for they will have the time and patience to explore conditions along the way, and to adapt their gait to changing circumstances. Tragically, democracy in a hurry often looks something like France in 1794 or China in 1989.


      It certainly seems possible that the most attractive democratic ideal in the face of the brutal realities of Jihad and the dull realities of McWorld will be a confederal union of semi-autonomous communities smaller than nation-states, tied together into regional economic associations and markets larger than nation-states -- participatory and self-determining in local matters at the bottom, representative and accountable at the top. The nation-state would play a diminished role, and sovereignty would lose some of its political potency. The Green movement adage "Think globally, act locally" would actually come to describe the conduct of politics.


      This vision reflects only an ideal, however -- one that is not terribly likely to be realized. Freedom, Jean-Jacques Rousseau once wrote, is a food easy to eat but hard to digest. Still, democracy has always played itself out against the odds. And democracy remains both a form of coherence as binding as McWorld and a secular faith potentially as inspiriting as Jihad.




      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Benjamin R. Barber is Whitman Professor of Political Science and director of the Whitman Center at Rutgers University and the author of many books including Strong Democracy (1984), An Aristocracy of Everyone (1992), and Jihad Versus McWorld (Times Books, 1995)

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Copyright ©, 1992, Benjamin R. Barber. All rights reserved.
      The Atlantic Monthly; March 1992; Jihad Vs. McWorld; Volume 269, No. 3; pages 53-65.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 00:16:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10.205 ()


      First evidence of foreign fighters in Iraq
      By Robert Fisk in Sidon
      07 December 2003


      When the Lebanese police arrested Moammer Abdullah Aouama last month, they claimed they had caught one of the men behind a series of bomb attacks against American fast-food restaurants in Lebanon. He had, supposedly, been handed to the authorities by Palestinians in the huge Ein el-Helwe refugee camp in Sidon where he had been hiding. But the real story is a little different. Moammer Aouama, say Palestinian sources, was loyal to Osama bin Laden and was en route to Iraq when he was picked up by the police.

      For weeks now there have been reports that Islamists in Ein el-Helwe - where thousands of Palestinians have turned to Sunni Islam for their political inspiration rather than the discredited nationalism of the past - have been travelling to Iraq to fight the Americans. One local Lebanese journalist believes that more than 100 fighters have left via Syria for Iraq, although Palestinians say the true figure is only in the dozens. Nevertheless, the exodus from the camp does provide some evidence that the Bush administration`s insistence that "foreign fighters`` are arriving in Iraq has some basis in truth.

      Aouama is a Yemeni and was captured with a Palestinian fighter, Ali Moussa Musri, both of whom are believed to have been involved in a Sunni uprising in northern Lebanon almost four years ago that was directly linked by the authorities to al-Qa`ida. According to Palestinian sources, the two men were to have passed across the Anti-Lebanon mountain chain into Syria and then, through the eastern desert, into Iraq.

      Over the past three weeks, Lebanese and Syrian troops have been closing down many of the illegal tracks by which smugglers cross the mountains. At least 50 of them have been blocked by mounds of earth and cement along 35 miles of the joint border, following American accusations that fighters have been infiltrating from Lebanon via Syria into Iraq. While the new blockades - and the setting up of temporary police posts - have caused problems for contraband dealers who use cars and mules, individuals can still cross the frontier on the desolate mountainside.

      For years, Iraqis and Kurds fleeing Saddam`s regime have been smuggled across the border in the other direction to live secretly in the slums of Beirut; because it is host to an estimated 250,000 Palestinians in Lebanon, the government here never subscribed to refugee conventions and the Iraqis relied on the help of an unofficial refugee agency to provide them with money. Many now wish to return to Iraq. But ever since Saddam first called upon non-Iraqi Arab fighters to defend Iraq, young men have made their way from Lebanon to Baghdad. Palestinians and Syrians travelled to Iraq in the last days of the Anglo-American invasion and some were killed before the war ended.

      At least 10 Palestinians from the Bourj el-Barajneh camp in Beirut travelled to Iraq to fight the Americans in March; others left from the Sabra and Chatila camp. Four of them died in the last battle for Baghdad and were fêted as heroes when their bodies were returned for burial.

      But the new fighters reported to be leaving Sidon are a quite different phenomenon. Some are 40-year-old veterans of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon who see the American occupation of Iraq as unfinished business. Others, more religiously inclined, see their campaign as a holy war against both the US and Israel. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defence, claims that between 200 and 300 have arrived in Iraq, mostly from Lebanon and Syria. The figure is probably an exaggeration. But the Palestinians of Ein el-Helwe are still armed and trained - not just with anti-aircraft guns but with hand-held ground-to-air missiles; a source of expertise for a resistance movement which is now clawing down American helicopters over Iraq.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 09:40:41
      Beitrag Nr. 10.206 ()
      31 U.S. Soldiers Wounded in Iraq Car Bomb Blast
      Tue December 09, 2003 03:09 AM ET


      By Seb Walker
      MOSUL, Iraq (Reuters) - An apparent suicide bomber wounded 31 U.S. soldiers when he detonated his vehicle at the entrance to an American military base in northern Iraq on Tuesday, a U.S. military spokesman said.

      The attack coincided with an announcement from Japan that it has approved a plan to dispatch non-combat troops to Iraq, despite strong voter opposition.

      U.S. Major Trey Cate of the 101st Airborne Division said soldiers opened fire on the vehicle as it raced toward the gate of their base in the town of Tal Afar, 28 miles west of Mosul. The car then exploded in an apparent suicide blast.

      "The vehicle did not stop, so soldiers fired on it. It then detonated. None of the injuries are life-threatening," said Cate, adding that the attack occurred shortly before dawn.

      U.S. troops in northern Iraq have come under sustained attack in recent weeks, particularly in and around Mosul, Iraq`s third largest city. A U.S. soldier was shot and killed in a drive-by shooting in the city on Monday and another died in a roadside bomb blast at the weekend.

      Late last month the headquarters of the 101st was mortared, killing one soldier. The attacks have been a setback for U.S. commanders, who were praised for bringing a degree of calm and stability to the region in the immediate postwar period.

      Since Washington launched the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein in March, 308 U.S. soldiers have been killed in action, 193 of them since President Bush declared major combat over at the beginning of May.

      While the U.S. military says the overall number of attacks against troops has declined from as many as 50 a day to around 20 following a recent offensive against guerrillas, November was still the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began.

      JAPAN TO SEND TROOPS

      In a show of support for the U.S.-led coalition, Japan`s cabinet approved a plan on Tuesday to send troops to Iraq.

      The landmark decision, less than two weeks after the killing of two Japanese diplomats in Iraq, clears the way for what could be the biggest and most dangerous overseas mission by Japan`s military since World War II.

      Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who has had to balance Japan`s tight security ties with the United States with domestic concerns, is expected to explain the controversial step at a news conference later in the day.

      The relentlessness of the insurgency in Iraq has also had an impact on those allied to or backed by the U.S.-coalition. Iraqi police have been repeatedly attacked recently and contractors working to rebuild infrastructure have also been targeted.

      On Monday, a group of South Korean electrical workers left Baghdad for Jordan following the killing of two of their colleagues by guerrillas late last month. More than 40 contractors working for South Korea`s Ohmu Electric Co. Ltd. on a project to restore the country`s power infrastructure have left in the past two days, the latest blow to U.S.-led efforts to reconstruct the country.

      Embassies have also withdrawn under the onslaught, with Bangladesh becoming the latest to close its mission in Baghdad. Its diplomats were evacuated to neighboring Jordan on Monday after an e-mail threat to blow up the embassy.

      Despite the dogged insurgency, the U.S. civilian administration in Iraq is looking to speed up the transition of power to Iraqis and is pushing to give Iraqi-led forces ever more responsibility for policing and security.

      There are now almost as many Iraqi police, civil defense force units and soldiers in the newly formed army as there are U.S. troops in the country -- around 130,000. (With reporting by Dean Yates in Baghdad)
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 10:07:37
      Beitrag Nr. 10.207 ()
      Israel trains US assassination squads in Iraq
      Julian Borger in Washington
      Tuesday December 9, 2003
      The Guardian

      Israeli advisers are helping train US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday.

      The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has sent urban warfare specialists to Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the home of US special forces, and according to two sources, Israeli military "consultants" have also visited Iraq.

      US forces in Iraq`s Sunni triangle have already begun to use tactics that echo Israeli operations in the occupied territories, sealing off centres of resistance with razor wire and razing buildings from where attacks have been launched against US troops.

      But the secret war in Iraq is about to get much tougher, in the hope of suppressing the Ba`athist-led insurgency ahead of next November`s presidential elections.

      US special forces teams are already behind the lines inside Syria attempting to kill foreign jihadists before they cross the border, and a group focused on the "neutralisation" of guerrilla leaders is being set up, according to sources familiar with the operations.

      "This is basically an assassination programme. That is what is being conceptualised here. This is a hunter-killer team," said a former senior US intelligence official, who added that he feared the new tactics and enhanced cooperation with Israel would only inflame a volatile situation in the Middle East.

      "It is bonkers, insane. Here we are - we`re already being compared to Sharon in the Arab world, and we`ve just confirmed it by bringing in the Israelis and setting up assassination teams."

      "They are being trained by Israelis in Fort Bragg," a well-informed intelligence source in Washington said.

      "Some Israelis went to Iraq as well, not to do training, but for providing consultations."

      The consultants` visit to Iraq was confirmed by another US source who was in contact with American officials there.

      The Pentagon did not return calls seeking comment, but a military planner, Brigadier General Michael Vane, mentioned the cooperation with Israel in a letter to Army magazine in July about the Iraq counter-insurgency campaign.

      "We recently travelled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their counterterrorist operations in urban areas," wrote General Vane, deputy chief of staff at the army`s training and doctrine command.

      An Israeli official said the IDF regularly shared its experience in the West Bank and Gaza with the US armed forces, but said he could not comment about cooperation in Iraq.

      "When we do activities, the US military attaches in Tel Aviv are interested. I assume it`s the same as the British. That`s the way allies work. The special forces come to our people and say, do debrief on an operation we have done," the official said.

      "Does it affect Iraq? It`s not in our interest or the American interest or in anyone`s interest to go into that. It would just fit in with jihadist prejudices."

      Colonel Ralph Peters, a former army intelligence officer and a critic of Pentagon policy in Iraq, said yesterday there was nothing wrong with learning lessons wherever possible.

      "When we turn to anyone for insights, it doesn`t mean we blindly accept it," Col Peters said. "But I think what you`re seeing is a new realism. The American tendency is to try to win all the hearts and minds. In Iraq, there are just some hearts and minds you can`t win. Within the bounds of human rights, if you do make an example of certain villages it gets the attention of the others, and attacks have gone down in the area."

      The new counter-insurgency unit made up of elite troops being put together in the Pentagon is called Task Force 121, New Yorker magazine reported in yesterday`s edition.

      One of the planners behind the offensive is a highly controversial figure, whose role is likely to inflame Muslim opinion: Lieutenant General William "Jerry" Boykin.

      In October, there were calls for his resignation after he told a church congregation in Oregon that the US was at war with Satan, who "wants to destroy us as a Christian army".

      "He`s been promoted a rank above his abilities," he said. "Some generals are pretty good on battlefield but are disastrous nearer the source of power."


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 10:52:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.208 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 10:57:03
      Beitrag Nr. 10.209 ()
      She denies it at every turn. Democrats hope it`s all bluff. So will Hillary run?
      By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
      09 December 2003


      No, Hillary Clinton won`t be in Durham, New Hampshire, tonight to participate in the latest of those instantly forgettable Democratic candidates` debates. Moreover, not a week passes without her disavowing all ambitions to run for the White House in 2004, and all logic would tend to support her. And yet the shade of Hillary refuses to go gently from the Presidential stage. Her admirers nurse a flicker of hope, her rivals-who-are-not must surely feel just a flicker of fire. Could not the seemingly impossible yet come to pass? And precedent suggests the door is not quite shut.

      In US political lore, the denial against which all other political disclaimers must be measured is that of Lyndon B Johnson (LBJ) on 31 March 1968, when he took himself out of that November`s election to devote himself to the search for peace in Vietnam. "Accordingly," he told a stunned nation that evening, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President." Now Hillary is fine on the Part One of the Johnson formulation. At this stage in proceedings, no one expects her to join an already over-crowded Democratic field for 2004 and, even if she wanted to, it is almost certainly too late. She has no organisation in place, and every sign right now is that the upstart outsider Howard Dean is cruising to victory. He is ahead in the polls in Iowa, and has overtaken the hapless Senator John Kerry to lead by a staggering 30 per cent in New Hampshire.

      If the former Vermont governor wins these first two primary states, most political analysts believe that Dr Dean will be virtually unstoppable.

      And, runs the conventional wisdom, why should Mrs Clinton bother? Assuming that the US economy continues to recover, and that US casualties in Iraq remain at their present politically tolerable level, George Bush must be a strong favourite for re-election. Far better to wait until 2008 when the race will be completely open. Now she can build up her credentials, get her own political machine in place and, subtly, remake her image.

      Insofar as the persona ever existed, Hillary the rabid liberal and peacenik is no more. But, for her left-wing constituency, the legend lingers. Less noticed, she has moved to fill the national security gap in her resumé by joining the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she works hard, sometimes in alliance with Republicans, even with conservatives like South Carolina`s freshman Senator Lindsey Graham (who, as a Congressman, was among the most fervent supporters of the impeachment of her husband).

      Mrs Clinton voted for the war with Iraq in October 2002 and her recent well-publicised trip to Baghdad seems to have done nothing to have changed her mind. In that respect, she contrasts vividly with her Massachusetts colleague Mr Kerry, whose campaign is collapsing largely because of his failure to explain why he agreed with the war then, only to oppose Mr Bush`s $87bn (£50.2bn) Iraq stabilisation package now.

      Mrs Clinton can be as trenchantly critical of Republicans as anyone. But she is quietly metamorphosing into a Democratic moderate, whose appeal extends into the centre of the political spectrum. All seems geared to a White House bid in 2008. But her most impatient supporters have not lost heart.

      What if the economy collapsed or Iraq degenerated into chaos, they wonder, suddenly giving the Democrats a real shot at victory next year? Mrs Clinton`s White House ambitions are not in doubt. But if she sits 2004 out and Dr Dean, say, won, she would be unable to run in her own right until 2012, when she would be 65, older than any incoming President since Ronald Reagan. And even better, her fans have yet to hear Part Two of the LBJ disclaimer: what if the nomination was offered to her on a plate? Thus a fantasy circulates. Dr Dean does well in the primaries, but not as well as expected, and remains without a watertight majority of delegates as the Democratic convention opens in Boston on 26 July 2004. Amid continuing public doubts over the electability of the former Vermont governor, other candidates continue to jockey for the prize.

      At which point enter Hillary as dea ex machina, a perfect compromise to resolve a deadlocked convention. Now it must be said that this political junkies` heaven has not materialised in half a century or more, and that it will be harder than ever to bypass candidates who have weathered an unprecedentedly gruelling primary season in favour of some-one who has not campaigned at all. But, her supporters would argue, the people`s will would be respected if Hillary were to emerge as the anointed one.

      For do not polls show that she is the first choice of more than 40 per cent of registered Democrats, three times the number who prefer Dr Dean? With the passing of Bill Clinton from the presidential scene, she is unquestionably the Democrats` brightest political star. She is their most potent fundraiser, while the stunning success of her memoirs, Living History, a turgid piece of political boilerplate if ever there was one, only confirms her popularity. When Mrs Clinton attends a candidates` event, she steals the show.

      Small wonder then that her coquettish performance on no fewer than three Sunday political talk shows at the weekend, at which she laughed off all speculation for 2004, did not entirely convince everyone. Could not Mrs Clinton consciously be playing hard to get, positioning herself for her party as General de Gaulle once positioned himself for France, `dans la reserve de la Republique?` Politics is a strange business. Few would have predicted eight months ago that, come December, a little known ex-governor of an obscure New England state would be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Who now can be quite certain that eight months hence, a very well-known former-First Lady will not be in the running to receive it?

      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 11:03:05
      Beitrag Nr. 10.210 ()
      Keiner hat Dean es zugetraut, aber nun wird er der wahrscheinlichste Kandidat der Dems. Ob er aber gewinnen kann, ist zweifelhaft, weil er für amerikanische Verhältnisse "links" steht.

      December 9, 2003
      Gore to Endorse Dean, Remaking Democratic Race
      By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JODI WILGOREN

      WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — Al Gore has decided to endorse Howard Dean for president, aides to the men said Monday, a move that rocked the Democratic presidential field and hastened Dr. Dean`s evolution from a long-shot maverick to a leading candidate of the Democratic establishment.

      Mr. Gore will announce his endorsement of Dr. Dean on Tuesday at events in Harlem and in Iowa, Democrats close to both men said.

      The decision by Mr. Gore, the former vice president who opened the floodgates to this crowded Democratic nomination contest by declaring last December that he would not run again, stunned Democrats and emboldened the Dean campaign, which chartered three jets to carry Dr. Dean, Mr. Gore and dozens of reporters to Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

      "This is huge," said Donna Brazile, who was Mr. Gore`s campaign manager in 2000. "It gives Dean what Dean has been missing most: stature. Gore is a major-league insider, somebody with enormous credibility that Democrats respect, who can rally the grass roots and who`s been speaking very strongly in the last few months about the direction he wants to take the country."

      Gerald McEntee, the president of the municipal workers union, which endorsed Dr. Dean last month, said: "I think this may be the beginning of the end for the other candidates."

      Mr. Gore`s decision put him in the odd position of supporting an insurgent candidate who has built his campaign attacking the centrist Democratic positions that the former Vice President has espoused for two decades.

      It also came as a devastating surprise to Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who was Mr. Gore`s running mate in the disputed 2000 election. Mr. Lieberman delayed entering the 2004 race until he was sure Mr. Gore would not run, a show of courtesy to Mr. Gore that Democrats later blamed for Mr. Lieberman`s slow start in the race.

      Mr. Lieberman vowed to remain in the race, saying he was "more determined than ever to continue to fight for what`s right for my party and my country."

      Mr. Lieberman`s spokesman, Jano Cabrera, said Mr. Lieberman had learned of the decision after reporters called for comment. Asked if Mr. Gore had called his old friend to inform him, Mr. Cabrera responded: "No. That`s my only response."

      Mr. Gore`s endorsement was also a setback for Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and seemed likely to complicate his efforts to defeat Dr. Dean in Iowa, a state where Mr. Gore is popular.

      It was also a rebuke to Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who has surrounded himself with former advisers to Mr. Gore and to former President Bill Clinton in an effort to appear as the candidate with the implicit support of the last White House.

      The support of Mr. Gore should go a long way in addressing one of the questions that has clouded Dr. Dean`s candidacy: Is he too far out of the mainstream to be taken seriously in presidential politics?

      At a late-night fund-raiser at the Roseland Ballroom in midtown Manhattan, the crowd interrupted Dr. Dean`s speech with chants of "Al Gore, Al Gore," but the candidate just shrugged and said, "I cannot confirm or deny."

      Mr. Gore did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.

      But his associates noted that Mr. Gore had long said he wanted to make an endorsement that would have an impact on the race and said he had been unimpressed with what one described as Mr. Lieberman`s tepid campaign.

      By contrast, they said, he had been enthralled by what he saw as the huge surge of interest in Dr. Dean`s campaign and had taken notice of the turnout for a speech Mr. Gore gave in Washington last month on civil liberties. The speech was sponsored by MoveOn.org, a progressive Internet group that provided a major lift to Dr. Dean`s campaign.

      "There`s something that Gore finds very appealing about Dean energizing the Democratic base," one of his associates said on Monday. "I would say it`s wistful, but when Gore gave a speech to MoveOn, he got 3,000 people there. There were times in the race when we couldn`t get 3,000 people to turn up, and he was the nominee. He sees an energy and vitality here."

      The aide said Mr. Gore also was struck by Dr. Dean`s position as an opponent of the war in Iraq and was distressed that his former running mate, whom he had warmly described in 2000 as the most qualified person he knew to be vice president, had become such a strong supporter of the war.

      In 2000, Dr. Dean, then the governor of Vermont, considered running for president and met with Mr. Gore, who dissuaded him in what one former Gore aide described as "awkward conversation." At the time, the aide said, Dr. Dean told Mr. Gore that "he`s going to challenge him for the presidency."

      "Obviously, between then and now, things have changed," the aide said.

      Dr. Dean endorsed Mr. Gore in January 2000, a few weeks before the New Hampshire primary. At the time, there were discussions about Dr. Dean`s being named secretary of health and human services, the aide said.

      But after Mr. Gore decided not to run, Dr. Dean began what an adviser described as a "long courtship" of the former vice president.

      And aides to Dr. Dean said they regularly spoke to senior advisers to Mr. Gore and his wife, Tipper, as part of the effort to enlist one of the most sought-after endorsements.

      Mr. Gore has in recent weeks told friends that Dr. Dean`s policy positions were closest to his own.

      The decision caught most Democrats flat-footed. Mr. Clinton, appearing in San Francisco on Monday with the Democratic candidate for mayor, Gavin Newsom, said he had been unaware of Mr. Gore`s decision and did not intend to issue an endorsement at this point. "I feel obligated to all of them," Mr. Clinton said of the Democratic candidates. "I don`t intend to take a position until the voters decide who the nominee is."

      The office of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts sent a response by e-mail, with a staff member`s notation inadvertently left on the top: "Here are some options: I don`t think Kerry should comment unless asked at a press event."

      In the statement itself, Mr. Kerry said, "This election will be decided by voters, across the country, beginning with voters in Iowa."

      Aides to Mr. Gephardt seemed equally surprised, noting that Mr. Gephardt had put aside his own bid for the presidency in 2000 to endorse Mr. Gore.

      Steve Murphy, Mr. Gephardt`s campaign manager, said: "Al Gore and Dick Gephardt fought side by side to pass the Clinton economic plan, to defend against the Republican efforts to cut Medicare, to pass the assault weapons ban and to save affirmative action. Howard Dean was on the other side of every one of those fights."

      Aides to other candidates noted that in the 1980`s Mr. Gore had been part of the effort to move his party to the center, particularly on military issues, and suggested an incongruence in the military views of Mr. Gore and Dr. Dean.

      Some said this was the latest manifestation of the struggle for influence over the Democratic Party between Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton, who has had warm things to say about General Clark.

      One person close to General Clark suggested that Mr. Gore was supporting Dr. Dean in the calculation that Dr. Dean would lose to Mr. Bush in November and that Mr. Gore would then enjoy the good will of Dean supporters "when he runs against Hillary Clinton in 2008."

      General Clark, in an appearance on Monday evening on the MSNBC news program "Hardball," said he was unconcerned with Mr. Gore`s decision. "I don`t pay attention to endorsements, unless they are for me," he said.


      Adam Nagourney reported from Washington for this article, and Jodi Wilgoren reported from New York.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 11:04:49
      Beitrag Nr. 10.211 ()
      Rein oder raus?

      December 9, 2003
      Japan OKs Troops for Iraq, PM Appeals to Public
      By REUTERS

      Filed at 4:51 a.m. ET

      TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan`s cabinet approved a plan on Tuesday to dispatch troops to Iraq, a landmark decision setting the stage for what is likely to be the nation`s biggest and most dangerous overseas military mission since World War II.

      Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said the controversial plan, which critics have said is ill-conceived and violates Japan`s pacifist constitution, would allow the troops to assist in the reconstruction efforts but not to take part in combat.

      ``They are going to help in humanitarian, reconstruction activities, Koizumi told a televised news conference.

      ``They will not exercise military force, they are not going there to stage war,`` he said after the cabinet approved the plan.

      The decision, roundly attacked by opposition parties, comes as surveys show that the vast majority of the public are opposed to sending troops now.

      About half of voters surveyed by public broadcaster NHK last weekend, however, said they would back an eventual dispatch.

      Debate intensified after two Japanese diplomats were gunned down in Iraq late last month.

      The prime minister has had to balance Japan`s tight security ties with the United States, which is keen for the dispatch, with domestic concerns that increased after the diplomats` deaths.

      ``We have been put to the test to show with action, not just with words, our commitment both to the Japan-U.S. alliance and international cooperation,`` Koizumi said.

      Just minutes before the cabinet approval, the U.S. army said 31 U.S. soldiers were wounded in northern Iraq when a car believed to be driven by a suicide bomber exploded at the entrance to their base.

      No member of Japan`s military has fired a shot in combat or been killed in an overseas mission since World War II, although they have taken part in United Nations peacekeeping operations since a 1992 law made that possible.

      NO DATE FOR DISPATCH

      The plan allows for the dispatch of up to 600 army personnel at any time during a one-year period starting December 15. It does not set a specific date when they will actually be sent.

      That touchy decision will be made after Japan`s defense minister draws up a separate ``action`` plan, but the bulk of the troops are expected to be sent next year.

      Ground forces are to be sent to southeastern Iraq, where Tokyo believes the security situation is stable.

      But the troops will be equipped with the heaviest artillery they have ever taken overseas, including portable anti-tank rocket launchers and recoilless guns as protection against possible suicide bomb attacks.

      Tuesday`s plan also says up to 200 vehicles including armored vehicles, eight air force transport planes, two navy warships and two destroyers may be sent to Iraq.

      Japan`s constitution renounces the right to go to war and prohibits the nation from having a military, but has been interpreted as allowing Japan to have forces for self-defense.

      Recent governments have stretched the constitutional constraints, and debate over revising the pacifist clause is heating up. Koizumi is in favor of making such changes.

      A law allowing troops to be sent to help rebuild Iraq was enacted in July, but specifies that they be sent only to ``non-combat`` zones.

      JAPAN AS TARGET

      The killing of the two diplomats near Saddam Hussein`s hometown of Tikrit and growing attacks against non-U.S. personnel in Iraq have raised fears that Japanese troops may become targets if they are sent there.

      Many Japanese also fear there could be terrorist attacks at home following reported threats by al Qaeda to ``strike at the heart of Tokyo`` if Japan sends troops to Iraq.

      More than 100 demonstrators protested outside the prime minister`s residence on Tuesday, shouting and holding banners saying ``No to the Iraq troop deployment.``

      A weekend survey by public broadcaster NHK showed that only 17 percent of voters favored sending the military to Iraq soon, 53 percent would support a dispatch after peace and order were restored, and 28 percent opposed it in any circumstances.



      Copyright 2003 Reuters Ltd.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 11:06:24
      Beitrag Nr. 10.212 ()
      December 9, 2003
      NEWS ANALYSIS
      Mr. Inside Embraces Mr. Outside, and What a Surprise
      By TODD S. PURDUM

      WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — In moving to endorse Howard Dean, Al Gore embraced an insurgent candidate who has spent months railing against the brand of centrist-at-home, hawkish-abroad Democratic politics that Mr. Gore worked 20 years to help build. And in winning the endorsement, Dr. Dean has shown that he is now much more concerned about wooing the Washington establishment than whacking it.

      Politics makes strange bedfellows? You bet.

      In pledging allegiance to Dr. Dean, Mr. Gore passed over Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the man he chose three years ago as his own running mate; Gen. Wesley K. Clark, for whom several of his former aides are working; Representative Richard A. Gephardt, a onetime rival who warmly endorsed him four years ago; and Senator John Kerry, a former colleague who declined to challenge him for the nomination in 2000.

      It was a move of striking — and discretionary — boldness that would have been all but unheard of for the cautious, calculating candidate Mr. Gore once was. At a time when a new generation of Democrats, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, are in the spotlight, this dramatic announcement puts Mr. Gore, at least briefly, back at the center of the public stage he left last year.

      By accepting Mr. Gore`s support, Dr. Dean clearly hopes to ease the fears of Democratic office-holders who worry that he cannot beat President Bush. Mr. Gore remains popular in Iowa, whose crucial early caucuses Dr. Dean is hoping to win, as well as with black voters in the South and throughout the nation whose support Dr. Dean would badly need in a general election. The location of the endorsement announcement, scheduled for Harlem and Iowa, drove home that point. But even as he stands to gain, Dr. Dean may also alienate some of the grass roots supporters who have flocked to his crusade, disaffected by politics as usual and disappointed by Mr. Gore`s losing campaign in 2000.

      The move carries obvious potential rewards, but equally obvious risks, for both men. The sudden marriage of such a seeming odd couple could wind up being seen as so politically expedient as to seem almost unprincipled, playing into the public`s worst perceptions that campaigns are about power and winning, not big ideas.

      "It plays into Republicans, who want to re-fight the last election and run against Democrats as not having firm moral values or beliefs," one Democratic strategist said. "They`re going to use it against Gore, saying he threw out everything he believes in, and they`ll use it against Dean saying he sold out. The No. 1 picture in both Democratic and Republican direct mail is going to be Gore and Dean together."

      So why did Mr. Gore do it?

      "It`s just fascinating to me," said one former aide among several who confessed, all on condition of anonymity, that they were puzzled by the choice. "It`s either Al Gore unplugged: `Look at me! I don`t need any advisers. I`m my own guy. I don`t have to put my finger to the wind and I can do unconventional things.` Or it`s that Dean draws the sharpest contrast with Bush and that`s the attraction."

      Indeed, since ending his self-imposed moratorium on criticism of President Bush after he took office, Mr. Gore has emerged periodically with sharply critical set-piece speeches faulting the man who got the job he wanted. Several Gore aides noted on Monday that some of these comments have sounded far more candid — and liberal — than the man they worked for.

      Another Gore intimate said: "Look, he wouldn`t do this if he wasn`t excited about Dean. This is a guy, it`s not as if he`s the personification of the Democratic Party, but he might as well be, given he was the nominee. And now he`s saying it`s O.K.," to be for Dr. Dean, "so that`s the significance of it."

      Mr. Gore and Dr. Dean have at least one thing in common: technology, specifically the Internet. Mr. Gore was an avid early supporter of the Internet, and Dr. Dean has exploited its organizational and fund-raising potential like no candidate before him. In a nascent career in the private sector, Mr. Gore has worked for a Los Angeles-based investment company with interests in high technology and tried to recruit investors for a liberal media alternative to conservative outlets like Fox News.

      In August, Mr. Gore made a policy speech at New York University in Manhattan, criticizing the Bush administration`s handling of the war in Iraq. The event was sponsored by MoveOn.org, the grass-roots Internet organization that was founded in opposition to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and has been instrumental in Dr. Dean`s campaign. He said then that he would eventually endorse a Democrat for the White House, among other reasons, "because I believe that we must stand for a future in which the United States will again be feared only by its enemies" and for "a republic once again comfortable that its chief executive knows the limits as well as the powers of the presidency; a nation that places the highest value on facts, not ideology, as the basis for all its great debates and decisions."

      Before the 2000 election, when Mr. Gore was vice president, he was concerned enough that a largely unknown governor from Vermont named Howard Dean might challenge him for the nomination that he took the trouble of warning Mr. Dean not to run. When Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, devised this cycle`s front-loaded primary schedule, he too hoped that it would help deter challengers and lead the party to rally early around a consensus candidate — perhaps even Mr. Gore himself.

      It did not work out that way, of course. Mr. Gore chose not to be a contender. Now the man who would have been king may settle for being a kingmaker after all.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 11:08:13
      Beitrag Nr. 10.213 ()
      December 8, 2003
      Q&A: A NATO Role in Iraq

      From the Council on Foreign Relations, December 8, 2003


      Robert Hunter, the U.S. ambassador to NATO during the Clinton presidency, urges the Bush administration to consider making Iraqi security a NATO mission and shifting civilian authority to the United Nations. Such an arrangement, he says, "would tell the American people we were not alone" while allowing the United States to "still run the show" in Iraq.

      "It is hard to understand why the United States wouldn`t risk going in this direction, when the payoff could be so enormous, in terms of ... having other countries there, lowering the visibility of American forces, and, hence, lowering their chances of being killed," he says.

      Hunter is a senior adviser at the RAND Corporation in Washington, D.C., a nonprofit policy advisory institution. He was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on December 8, 2003.

      In September, you wrote an op-ed article for The New York Times about Iraq that was headlined, "Let NATO Do It." At the recent meetings in Brussels of the foreign and defense ministers of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, there was discussion about getting NATO involved in Iraq. Do you think this might happen?

      A number of NATO countries are already there in bits and pieces within the British or American zones, and there is also a full-fledged Polish zone. What I had in mind in September, and what I still have in mind, is for NATO as an institution to take over the lead from the United States in terms of providing security. The United States would still be the dominant player but it would be under a NATO umbrella, with NATO forces from most of the countries, plus a lot of non-NATO nations. I still believe that`s feasible and the way to go.

      It`s feasible of course, but right now it doesn`t seem quite possible. Would the United States have to make concessions in terms of U.N. Security Council mandates, or something like that?

      Clearly, for NATO to go in, it would have to have an external mandate. It can operate from a mandate from the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, but that organization has not been used for this. Or it could get one from the U.N. Security Council. That`s how NATO went into Bosnia in 1995. The problem is: does the United States have to be 100 percent in control in Iraq, or are we prepared to share decisions with others, as well as the responsibility we want others to share with us? [Involving NATO] would be a wise decision for the United States. But the administration so far has not been prepared to countenance that.

      What about the problems the United States has had with France over Iraq? Are they now ameliorated, as some press accounts suggest?

      France is very much involved with us in Afghanistan. The French have about 150 special forces troops in Afghanistan fighting with the Americans, not as part of the NATO peacekeeping operation, but as part of the American fighting units that are going out after al Qaeda and the Taliban. Secondly, when NATO created its new peacekeeping force on October 15, France became the leading contributor of forces. No problem there. What the French are saying is that there needs to be recognition of a broader mandate in Iraq. There needs to be some sharing of authority by the United States and there needs to be Iraqis coming into positions of control or at least major activity, sooner rather than later. It comes down to whether the United States is prepared to risk sharing some authority, sharing some control, in order to get an extraordinary amount of physical and other kinds of support from other nations, including the NATO structure.

      How much control would the United States have to give up? Would [Coalition Provisional Authority head] L. Paul [Jerry] Bremer III be replaced by a U.N. director?

      Based on conversations I have had with a number of people, Jerry Bremer would have to be replaced by a U.N. administrator whose name would be Jerry Bremer. Even though he would receive a formal mandate from the United Nations, he would still be in charge. In fact, and I think people with NATO experience understand [this] fully, if the United States would accept this U.N. resolution and if NATO were officially put in charge, the unacknowledged well-known secret is that the United States would still run the show. And there would be joint activity between the United States and the European Union on reconstruction.

      You seem to be advocating what happened during the Korean War when, with the Russians boycotting the Security Council, the council set up a military force and the United States ran the force with General Douglas MacArthur, the supreme commander.

      That`s not a bad parallel. In fact, this time, so long as you have a United Nations resolution that acknowledges Iraqi sovereignty and talks about integrating the political process of change in Iraq, you wouldn`t have Russia sitting out. You could get everybody involved. It is hard to understand why the United States wouldn`t risk going in this direction, when the payoff could be so enormous in terms of not only having other countries there, lowering the visibility of American forces, and, hence, lowering their chances of being killed, but also blunting the symbolic role of Britain, which every Iraqi knows used to be the colonial power and is deeply resented for that. It would enable us, as in Kosovo and Bosnia, to get a lot of non-European people in uniform under NATO command. It would tell the American people we were not alone. It would help free up money. Our allies, the French and Germans in particular, have been telling us this for months. They tell all of us outside the government, and I presume they are telling people in the government the same.

      Under your plan, Bremer would be the U.N. administrator. How would NATO fit into this?

      Let the Europeans write any United Nations resolution they want. We just need a couple of things in it: Bremer is the U.N. guy, NATO is in charge, and the United States is the big enchilada. I believe that would be accepted in a heartbeat.

      What`s the thinking within the Bush administration, insofar as you can tell?

      Well, reading The New York Times, it seems that there is this split between [the] State and Defense [departments]. I wouldn`t be surprised, however, to see the president moving in this direction. Everything he says when he goes to NATO, the things that Secretary of State Colin Powell has said--and he is not a person who gets way out on a limb--seem to indicate, and I am really guessing now, that the president would be inclined to have a greater NATO role but isn`t yet willing to risk a loss of control.

      There are a couple of other elements one has to consider. To what extent is the administration worried that there would be a perception that the United States can`t succeed on its own? That would vitiate the idea that unilateralism is better than multilateralism. I hate that term. I prefer the one I invented for Governor Bill Clinton back in 1992--"Do things together when you can, and do them alone when you must."

      There may also be some people worried that [a NATO mission in Iraq] would blunt the possibility of pre-emption elsewhere, including [against] Iran. One of the things the Europeans, particularly the French and the Germans, are saying to us is: "We want to have some kind of confidence that if we help out on Iraq, the United States is not then going to turn willy-nilly and use military force against Iran." We need to sort that out along the lines of the most recent U.S.-European agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency position on how to address Iran`s secret nuclear program. There is still a debate within the administration over the view that we want to have the opportunity, with no constraints, to do something similar to [invading Iraq] again, somewhere else; [on the other side,] the Europeans saying, "Wait a second, if we`re going to participate, we want to have a chance this time to be in on the takeoff and not just the crash landing."

      You`re a veteran of the political wars in Washington. You were an adviser to Vice President Al Gore`s 2000 campaign.

      I was also in the Johnson White House and four years in the Carter White House.

      How is this playing out politically in the United States? Is Bush waiting for the right moment to make a dramatic move? He is being belted by almost every Democratic candidate for not having the United Nations more involved.

      This is beyond my Ouija board. I would have thought, looking at what we see in the polls, that the average American overwhelmingly would like to see more involvement by the United Nations and more involvement by NATO and certainly more involvement by the Europeans and others. Given the enormity of what we face in Iraq, the United States, as various people have said, cannot fail. The allies cannot let us fail. We are collectively engaged in sorting out Iraq, and sorting out the Middle East for the next generation. We have no choice. I would hope this could go beyond politics. If Mr. Bush wants to change his mind and say this is the way to go, I would hope people in the Democratic Party would say, "We will join with you, Mr. President" and would forebear, to the point that human nature will let us, from saying, "We told you so."

      American foreign policy, as you know, only works when the president can sell the Congress and the American people on his policy. In effect, American foreign policy only works when it is bipartisan. When it doesn`t, it fails, and it tends to lead to more Americans getting killed.



      Copyright 2003 |
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 11:11:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.214 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 11:12:53
      Beitrag Nr. 10.215 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 11:19:46
      Beitrag Nr. 10.216 ()

      Gas lines have become common in Iraq, which has the world`s second-largest oil reserves.
      Das Land schwimmt auf einem See aus Öl und die Occupanten sind nicht in der Lage die Menschen mit Sprit zu versorgen.


      washingtonpost.com
      Fueling Anger in Iraq
      Sabotage Exacerbates Petroleum Shortages

      By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
      Washington Post Foreign Service
      Tuesday, December 9, 2003; Page A01


      BAGHDAD, Dec. 8 -- The line of cars waiting to fill up at the Hurreya gas station on Monday snaked down the right lane of a busy thoroughfare, around a traffic circle, across a double-decker bridge spanning the Tigris River and along a potholed side street leading to one of Iraq`s three oil refineries.

      At the end, almost two miles from the station, was Mohammed Adnan, a taxi driver who could not comprehend why he would have to wait seven hours to fuel his mud-spattered Chevrolet Beretta. "This is Iraq," he noted wryly. "Don`t we live on a lake of oil?"

      Despite its vast underground oil reserves -- estimated to be the world`s second-largest -- Iraq is a country starved of petroleum products. Not only is gasoline in short supply, but so too are diesel, kerosene and propane.

      Over the past few weeks, lines for gasoline and other petroleum products have grown to lengths unimaginable even by the standards of the U.S. energy crisis in the 1970s. Some are miles long, forcing drivers to wait all day for a turn at the pump. Many Iraqis have taken to spending the night in their cars. Others have resorted to buying gas on the black market for 20 times the pump price.

      The difficulty in obtaining a commodity that Iraqis had long taken for granted has fueled a new wave of anger and frustration with the U.S. occupation, particularly among moderate, middle-class city dwellers who find themselves unable to drive to work, drop their children off at school or go shopping in this car-dependent city. The popular discontent appears to match the fury that enveloped Baghdad when electricity service dropped to just a few hours a day over the summer.

      U.S. officials here contend the gas shortage has numerous causes; they cite the import of 250,000 new cars since the end of the war and slumps in production during Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting. Compounding the problem, they said, are Iraq`s antiquated refineries, which have not been able to resume prewar output levels because supplies of two crucial inputs -- crude oil and electricity -- are regularly disrupted.

      "There`s no one thing that`s to blame," said an official with the U.S.-led occupation authority who is responsible for oil issues. "It`s a combination of a lot of little things."

      But officials with Iraq`s Oil Ministry offered a different view. The new cars have not increased overall demand for gasoline, largely because fewer people are working and traveling these days. The problem, they maintain, is security.

      Repeated sabotage of pipelines has disrupted the flow of crude oil into refineries and the removal of byproducts. Truckers bringing in fuel to alleviate the shortage from neighboring countries have been attacked on the highways, leading a contingent of Turkish drivers to go on strike last week. And the lack of adequate law enforcement has allowed black marketeers to exacerbate the situation by hoarding fuel.

      "If we had security, we would have fuel," said Dathar Khashab, the director of the Daura refinery in southern Baghdad.

      For Iraqis, the impact of the anti-American insurgency has perhaps been felt most broadly in the gasoline shortage. Although more than 100 Iraqis have been killed in car bombings and more than a score assassinated by insurgents for cooperating with occupation forces, the pipeline explosions and the attacks on truckers have disrupted the lives of Iraqis like nothing else.

      "Life is worse now than it was during the war," said Mazen Bayar, a retired foreman who works part time as a taxi driver. "I spend all day in the line. There`s no time to work."

      Standing atop a bridge where his car was stuck in line, Bayar looked out at the Daura refinery as an orange flame shot out of a smokestack. "We have always had enough oil," he said. "Now we have a shortage? Something suspicious is going on."

      But Bayar and a score of other drivers in line on Monday afternoon did not make a connection between the shortages and the insurgency, blamed largely on loyalists of the former president, Saddam Hussein. Instead, they cast the blame at everyone -- and anyone -- else.

      "Maybe it`s the black marketeers," Adnan said. "They`re taking all our fuel."

      Bayar was more certain. "It`s the refineries," he said. "They`re not producing enough gasoline."

      The driver of the next car in line scoffed at both explanations. "It`s the Americans, for sure," said Hassan Jawad Mehdi. "They are taking our oil back to America."

      Other drivers were convinced plenty of gasoline remained in distribution centers guarded by U.S. troops. "The Americans are keeping it from us until the security improves," one driver said. "If they wanted to give it to us, they could."

      When American oil experts descended on Iraq after Hussein`s government was toppled in April, they never foresaw the task of getting gasoline to Iraqis to be so complicated. The country`s three refineries -- one in the northern town of Baiji, one in the southern port city of Basra and one in Baghdad -- produced enough gasoline, diesel, kerosene and propane to meet the national demand. Even under U.N. economic sanctions, Hussein`s government kept the refineries running.

      Gasoline was sold then -- as now -- for a steal: about 5 cents a gallon.

      Although the Basra refinery and oil-pumping infrastructure in the south were extensively looted after the war, teams from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and contractor Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., performed emergency repairs.

      By midsummer, more than 1 million barrels of crude oil were being pumped each day from the northern and southern fields. The three refineries were ramping up production and it appeared they would soon return to prewar production levels.

      Then the insurgents found a new target: the web of pipelines that extend through a swath of the country long known for its loyalty to Hussein. Guerrillas began blowing up the lines that connect the Baiji and Daura refineries with the northern fields.

      At the Daura refinery, a chart in Khashab`s office that plots crude oil inputs has the peaks and valleys of an electrocardiogram. On some days, the plant, with a 110,000 barrel-per-day capacity, has processed less than 10,000 barrels. "This is no way to run a refinery," he said.

      Iraq`s daily domestic demand for gasoline is about 4 million gallons, but its refineries are producing only about 2 million, Oil Ministry officials said.

      To make up for the shortfall, the occupation authority and the Oil Ministry signed contracts to import oil from neighboring countries. "It was like bringing coals to Newcastle," one official with the occupation authority said. "But we had no choice."

      Between 2 million and 3 million gallons of oil products are imported into Iraq every day, the American official involved in oil issues said. Much of it has been brought in by Halliburton, the Houston-based company once run by Vice President Cheney, which has been paid as much as $2.65 per gallon by the U.S. government, a deal that has prompted criticism among some members of Congress but has been defended by the occupation authority as fair because of security-related expenses.

      Even so, escalating attacks on tanker trucks have disrupted that effort. Fuel imports from Turkey halted last week after drivers went on strike, largely over fears they would be attacked, Turkish trucking company owners said. The Turkish drivers also have refused to drive beyond the northern city of Mosul, forcing the Oil Ministry and the occupation authority to arrange another convoy of trucks to haul the fuel south to Baghdad.

      The drivers` refusal to travel south of Mosul has forced the Baiji refinery to scale back production because the trucks are needed to remove the heavy fuel oil that is a byproduct of the refining process. The refinery is operating at only about 50 percent of its 280,000-barrel-per-day capacity because storage tanks at the plant are filled with more than 30 million gallons of fuel oil, said the director, Riyad Ghassab.

      Fuel oil used to be removed from Baiji by a pipeline, but that line is now being used to transport crude to the refinery because the normal crude line was severed by saboteurs, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.

      "We have the oil," Ghassab said, "but we cannot move it around in our pipelines and on our roads."

      U.S. officials said military units have started to provide additional security for truck convoys. The Oil Ministry also is deploying several thousand new security officers to guard pipelines. And in Baghdad, U.S. soldiers and Iraqi police officers are taking a tougher posture with black-market vendors and the gas station owners who sell to them, arresting them en masse and threatening some with 10-year jail sentences.

      Such actions are not without risk. In Mosul, insurgents shot and killed a U.S. soldier guarding a gas station on Monday.

      Amer Hassan, the manager of the Hurreya station here, said American soldiers need to be even more aggressive. "They should show the black-market sellers no mercy," he said. "They are thieves."

      As he surveyed his station and puffed on a cigarette -- smoking is not prohibited at Iraqi gas stations -- Hassan expressed amazement at rows of eager drivers waiting to fill up their cars.

      "Of all things," he said, "we never thought we`d be without gasoline in Iraq."



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 11:32:57
      Beitrag Nr. 10.217 ()
      The writer is editor of the Weekly Standard. "Weekly Standard" ist die Vereinszeitung der NeoCons.
      Was immer mehr bei den nächsten Wahlen zu beachten sein wird, ist die stark steigende Anzahl von hispanic voters, die in überwältigender Mehrheit demokratisch stimmen.

      washingtonpost.com
      How Dean Could Win . . .


      By William Kristol

      Tuesday, December 9, 2003; Page A27


      Going into the final day of the college football regular season, Oklahoma was undefeated and ranked No. 1. The Sooners had the best defense in the nation, had outscored their opponents by an average of 35 points and had a nine-game winning streak against ranked teams. "OU: Among best ever?" USA Today asked (rhetorically) on Friday. Kansas State, by contrast, had three losses, and had never won a Big 12 championship. Oklahoma was favored by two touchdowns. Kansas State, of course, won, 35-7.

      For the next 11 months, Republicans, conservatives and Bush campaign operatives should, on arising, immediately following their morning prayers, repeat that score aloud 10 times. Underdogs do sometimes win. Howard Dean could beat President Bush. Saying you`re not overconfident (as the OU players repeatedly did) is no substitute for really not being overconfident. And if Bush loses next November, it`s over. There`s no BCS computer to give him another shot at the national championship in the Sugar Bowl.

      Could Dean really win? Unfortunately, yes. The Democratic presidential candidate has, alas, won the popular presidential vote three times in a row -- twice, admittedly, under the guidance of the skilled Bill Clinton, but most recently with the hapless Al Gore at the helm. And demographic trends (particularly the growth in Hispanic voters) tend to favor the Democrats going into 2004.

      But surely the fact that Bush is now a proven president running for reelection changes everything? Sort of. Bush is also likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover under whom there will have been no net job creation, and the first since Lyndon Johnson whose core justification for sending U.S. soldiers to war could be widely (if unfairly) judged to have been misleading.

      And President Bush will be running for reelection after a two-year period in which his party has controlled both houses of Congress. The last two times the American people confronted a president and a Congress controlled by the same party were in 1980 and 1994. The voters decided in both cases to restore what they have consistently preferred for the last two generations: divided government. Since continued GOP control of at least the House of Representatives seems ensured, the easiest way for voters to re-divide government would be to replace President Bush in 2004. And with a plurality of voters believing the country is on the wrong track, why shouldn`t they boot out the incumbent president?

      But is Dean a credible alternative? Was Kansas State? Dean has run a terrific primary campaign, the most impressive since Carter in 1976. It`s true that, unlike Carter (and Clinton), Dean is a Northeastern liberal. But he`s no Dukakis. Does anyone expect Dean to be a patsy for a Bush assault, as the Massachusetts governor was?

      And how liberal is Dean anyway? He governed as a centrist in Vermont, and will certainly pivot to the center the moment he has the nomination. And one underestimates, at this point when we are all caught up in the primary season, how much of an opportunity the party`s nominee has to define or redefine himself once he gets the nomination.

      Thus, on domestic policy, Dean will characterize Bush as the deficit-expanding, Social Security-threatening, Constitution-amending (on marriage) radical, while positioning himself as a hard-headed, budget-balancing, federalism-respecting compassionate moderate. And on foreign and defense policy, look for Dean to say that he was and remains anti-Iraq war (as, he will point out, were lots of traditional centrist foreign policy types). But Dean will emphasize that he has never ruled out the use of force (including unilaterally). Indeed, he will say, he believes in military strength so strongly that he thinks we should increase the size of the Army by a division or two. It`s Bush, Dean will point out, who`s trying to deal with the new, post-Sept. 11 world with a pre-Sept. 11 military.

      But what about Sept. 11? Surely Bush`s response to the attacks, and his overall leadership in the war on terrorism, remain compelling reasons to keep him in office. They do for me. But while Bush is committed to victory in that war, his secretary of state seems committed to diplomatic compromise, and his secretary of defense to an odd kind of muscle-flexing-disengagement. And when Bush`s chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., said on Sunday with regard to Iraq, "We`re going to get out of there as quickly as we can, but not before we finish the mission at hand," one wonders: Wouldn`t Howard Dean agree with that formulation? Indeed, doesn`t the first half of that sentence suggest that even the most senior of Bush`s subordinates haven`t really internalized the president`s view of the fundamental character of this war? If they haven`t, will the American people grasp the need for Bush`s continued leadership on Nov. 2? If not, prepare for President Dean.

      The writer is editor of the Weekly Standard.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 11:34:41
      Beitrag Nr. 10.218 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 11:38:50
      Beitrag Nr. 10.219 ()
      Fair and Balanced™ Cartoons noch nicht da.
      http://www.flu-ent.com/fairandbalanced.htm

      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 11:45:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10.220 ()

      Mike Keefe The Denver Post


      Sandy Huffaker, caglecartoons.com


      Mike Thompson, Detroit, Michigan, The Detroit Free Press


      David Catrow, Springfield, Ohio - The News-Sun
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 12:06:28
      Beitrag Nr. 10.221 ()
      Iraqi town`s balance of power stays in doubt
      By Charles Clover in Samarra
      Published: December 8 2003 4:00 | Last Updated: December 8 2003 4:00
      http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/Sto…
      A week after a vicious firefight in the streets of Samarra, in which US forces claim to have killed 54 guerrilla fighters, it was unclear on Sunday who really controlled the town.

      At the one remaining US military compound in the city, US soldiers on Sunday refused to leave their sand-bagged bunkers to meet a western visitor at the gate. "It`s dangerous here! Go away!" yelled one. Two other such US compounds within Samarra have been vacated in the past three weeks.

      US-paid Iraqi troops of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) have not entered the town since one of their number was killed on Saturday, shot by enraged mourners after his squad crossed paths with a funeral procession for a man slain in last week`s shoot-out.

      The ICDC men guard checkpoints outside the town. They wear green balaclavas so locals cannot recognise them. "So that no one knows who is doing this sacred duty," says Lt Col Ihsan Aziz Mohammed, the ICDC commander and 13-year veteran of the Iraqi Republican Guard.

      If what Lt Col Mohammed says is true, US forces and their Iraqi allies face open conflict with the entire town. On Sunday he accused local tribal leaders, religious clergy, and even the local police in Samarra of aiding "Saddam`s mercenaries", as he calls the guerrillas.

      As punishment for the Saturday killing, he has shut down the main road leading out of Samarra to all traffic from dusk to dawn for the next week.

      Lt Col Mohammed`s suspicions about local leaders and police appear to have some foundation. At the police headquarters in Samarra on Sunday, many high-ranking officers openly expressed sympathy for the anti-coalition guerrillas, speaking on the condition that they not be named. "The whole town rejects the occupation, and we work to serve the citizens," said one.

      While the US military insists it remains "offensively oriented" towards anti-coalition insurgents, in some towns such as Samarra US forces have largely withdrawn to the outskirts and handed the day-to-day security to the ICDC and Iraqi police forces.

      The US has trained about 145,000 Iraqis to serve in security forces across the country, but Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, admitted on Sunday that many of these troops had been hastily trained and equipped.

      "Experts say it should take eight weeks to train a policeman. We put some out on the street after four, with the understanding that we needed them on the street and life isn`t perfect," he said, adding that many would receive additional training in the future.

      US forces, accompanied by ICDC troops, venture on to the streets of Samarra only at night, mainly to carry out lightning raids and prisoner snatches directed against specific tribal and religious figures in the town. According to tribal leaders, this has fed resentment against the US occupation.

      "They come and break down our doors and take people away with no explanation," said Sheikh Mumtaz, leader of the Albu Baz tribe, who says two of his sons and two nephews have been arrested in the past week.

      Hostility already runs deep in Samarra. The last major US incursion into the town, made on November 30 to drop off newly minted Iraqi currency at a state bank, required eight M-1 main battle tanks, four Bradley armoured fighting vehicles, six Humvees and 93 troops. The two armoured columns were ambushed, and in the ensuing three-hour battle US soldiers say they killed 54 enemy commandos, wounded 22, and suffered five light injuries themselves.

      The local version of the battle is quite different: Samarra hospital workers say eight were killed and 54 injured, the majority of whom were civilians.

      US officials say they are still investigating the discrepancy in casualty figures.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 12:09:09
      Beitrag Nr. 10.222 ()
      http://www.atimes.com

      China

      US-CHINA: QUEST FOR PEACE
      Part 1: Two nations, a world apart
      By Henry C K Liu

      The United States, the world`s sole remaining superpower, is facing the reality of the limits of power, both military and economic, in its unilateral pursuit of global geopolitical objectives.

      The US needs to recognize that it cannot win its "war on terrorism" with military force alone, however overwhelming. While the notion of preemptive defense can serve as a convenient pretext for outright aggression, a widening gap between the enormity of US power and the legitimacy of its use erodes support for US policies even by its allies. This gap acts to stimulate rising resistance by asymmetrical warfare of which terrorism is a central component.

      The US needs to re-examine the moral prerequisite of its power. Unhappy experience with the war on poverty and the war on drugs should alert US policymakers to understand that to win the war on terrorism, the root causes of terrorism, the institutionalized socioeconomic inequities that lead to widespread rage fanned by hopelessness among the oppressed, must first be eliminated. Under current circumstances, conditions in East Asia have the potential of providing a model for a new and equitable economic order for the rest of the world.

      World peace in the 21st century depends on long-range accommodation between the US and China, because US-China relations are the fulcrum for enduring peace in East Asia, a region with potential for enormous growth or, if improperly handled, for world-shattering destructive conflict. A stable East Asia contributes fundamentally to the prospect of world peace based on this new equitable world order.

      The United States and China, the two dominant players in East Asia, are both blessed with structural strengths and invincible resolves that manifest in national pride justified by solid achievements. China, as a rising power after almost two centuries of continuous decline, has finally repositioned itself within reach of fulfilling its aim of restoring its four-millennia-old historical destiny as a great civilization. The US in two short centuries has become a science and technology powerhouse that has produced the largest share of the world`s modern scientists while China is a fountainhead of ancient philosophy that remains relevant after two millennia. Science and technology have turned the US into an economic and military superpower. Yet the largest number of scientists in the world under 30 years of age now live and work in China, and Chinese students are the largest ethnic group in graduate schools in the United States.

      Still, China, drawing on Chinese philosophical underpinning, has managed to survive the unprecedented onslaught of a century of Western imperialism backed by superior technology. Mao Zedong, a radical Marxist-Leninist, succeeded in ridding China of Western imperialism mainly because of his deep understanding of Chinese history and philosophy. Despite the fact that the US can boast having more scholars on Chinese studies than any other nation outside of China, the thought-control effects of the McCarthy era have yet to subside fully after five decades, making an objective understanding of China elusive to most US scholars. China, on the other hand, suffers from its share of naive infatuation with American modernity without full understanding. The result is bilateral amity for the wrong reasons and bilateral hostility.

      The two nations are fundamentally different. Yet national differences need not be the cause of irreconcilable conflict if nations treat their differences with mutual respect and symbiotic tolerance. Throughout history, wars have been fought among nations of similar political ideology as much as between nations of different ideologies. Wars between monarchies and wars of inter-capitalist rivalry are two obvious examples.

      The United States is a relatively young nation among modern-day great powers, while China is the oldest continuous nation in history. The US is a new society founded on individualism, while China is an old civilization based on timeless social hierarchy. Chinese convention in addressing mail puts the country first, province next, then county, then city, then street, then house number, and finally the individual recipient. The US/Western convention is the reverse, putting the individual recipient first and making the sorting of mail an irrational undertaking. The US is naturally modern because it does not have much of a past to update, while China`s long history renders the acceptance of modernity a conscious and uphill struggle. China has five times the population of the US and only a fifth of the United States` cultivatable land. The US is a two-ocean land, while China is land-locked on its west. Chinese rivers run west to east, while US rivers run north to south. The US is a land of immigrants who sought freedom and opportunity in a new world, while China is a land of emigrants with sizable overseas ethnic-Chinese communities all over the world; these overseas Chinese communities are more traditional than their kinfolk who stayed in China. The US aims to be a melting pot of diverse immigrant cultures, while China has 55 officially recognized national minorities living on 60 percent of its land, whose separate ethnic identities are protected from assimilation by law and policy. In addition to the majority ethnic Han nationality, China has a combined minorities population of more than 100 million among its total population of 1.3 billion. In the US, a tradition of power coming from wealth has emerged and is generally condoned, whereas Chinese culture considers natural the tradition of wealth coming from power.

      Throughout much of its history, the United States has regarded China with a sense of racist superiority based on ignorance. For the past half-century, the US has conducted its relations with China on the assumption that a self-proclaimed democratic nation cannot develop lasting harmonious relations with a communist state except as an accommodating geopolitical ploy against another communist state. With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, China re-emerged naturally to the top of the United States` enemy list due to unspoken US racial phobia and paranoia, until the events of September 11, 2001, which launched the US "war on terrorism" with an alternative enemy in the form of extremist Islamic fundamentalism. US policy of moral imperative on China had been part of its global crusade to spread democracy. Such an approach in foreign policy is both fraudulent and dangerous.

      The US sees itself as having been founded on principles of democracy. It enshrines in its foreign policy the aim of promoting democratic values globally and has justified going to war many times in recent decades in the name of defending democracy around the world. Yet the word "democracy" cannot be found in the US constitution. In Article IV, Section 4 of the constitution is the following clause: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." For a "republican form of government" to exist in any of the United States, the Union must first exist as a confederacy and not a national democracy. In the US constitutional regime, the guarantee clause of "a republican form of government" to each state prevents the federal government, which is a creature of the constitution, from extending or construing its constitutional rights and powers to invade the areas that are to remain under the sovereignty of the individual Free States.

      The clause means to protect the sovereignty of each Free State within the Union. It aims to protect the equal right of all citizens within a state to determine the way they will manage their lives and property as they pursued their happiness. The founders of the nation believed that this equal right was "an inalienable right" endowed by the Creator. This belief was made self-evident by the absence of extreme economic inequalities in the new American society. The founders also believed that this equal right belonged to all citizens of individual states, except slaves. It was commonly referred to by the founders as a citizen`s "Right of Conscience" or "Liberty of Conscience". Thus economic equality was the foundation of political democracy in America.

      In 1776, the people of the 13 Colonies fought and won from the British crown the right to exist in relative economic equality as a Union of Free States. Their victory also meant that the citizens of each of the Free States, which were the inheritors of the 13 Colonies, had the right to enjoy their "Rights of Conscience" without interference from a super-government.

      The first central government in the new nation was established by the Articles of Confederation, which after being severely amended to strengthen the powers of the individual states was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1777. The Articles reflected a popular distrust of central authority. Aside from foreign policy and defense, the Confederation was given no authority to levy taxes or to regulate interstate trade. Its revenue would come from requisitions on the states. No provision was provided for executive and judiciary branches of federal government. All powers were vested in Congress, with each of the 13 states allotted one vote, regardless of size, and nine votes out of 13 were needed for all decisions. The Articles could not be amended without the consent of all 13 states.

      Historians sympathetic to a strong government portray the Confederation era, which lasted from 1781 to 1789, as an unhappy period of economic depression and internal conflict without constructive political leadership. A small but influential group led by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and supported by merchants and large landowners, many of whom were war profiteers, began working for an effective federal government.

      The Federal Convention had its first meeting in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, to draft a new US constitution, with delegates from all 13 states except Rhode Island, most of whom belonged to wealthy and conservative classes elected by the state legislatures and not directly by the people. The Convention wanted to create a central government strong enough to maintain national security, pay national debts, promote economic development and protect US interests abroad. Conceding to popular sentiment in favor of state rights, the Convention aimed to reserve local sovereignty for the states and grant national sovereignty to the federal government to form a workable federal system.

      Being conservatives of privilege and education, the delegates wanted to limit outright majority rule, in the belief that it would endanger property rights and prevent wise and meritorious leadership. The prevalent sentiment was a distrust of democracy. Meeting behind closed doors, and with the proceedings kept from the public, many spoke their true feelings. Edmond Randolph of Virginia spoke for the delegates when he said "the evils under which the United States labored" were due to "the turbulence and follies of democracy". Madison declared that the aim was to "protect the minority of opulence against the majority". Noting that all political conflicts have an economic basis, a Marxist view preceding Karl Marx by half a century, Madison explained the theory on which the constitution was based as balancing political power among all economic groups to prevent any one economic group from acquiring dominant control of government and then oppressing all others.

      The states were deprived of the right to issue money, in the form of sovereign credit. A sovereign who cannot issue sovereign credit is not much of a sovereign. The states were forced to finance their developmental needs through debt. With the 1913 creation of the Federal Reserve as a central bank, the issuance of money as sovereign credit was removed even from the federal government and placed in the hands of a privately controlled, politically independent public agency. The federal government was also placed in the position of having to finance its deficits through debt, instead of issuing sovereign credit. In time, the Federal Reserve came to adopt a monetary policy based mainly on the setting of short-term interest rates to control money supply, in essence using permanent structural unemployment as the main tool to protect the value of money. The states were also prohibited from passing any law that impaired the obligation of contracts. The federal power to enforce contracts became one of the most important items in the whole constitution, and the sanctity of contracts is the foundation of the US system, not democracy.

      Thomas Jefferson believed that the "Right of Conscience" clause was the most important clause of the constitution, not the enforcement of private contracts. He so stated in a letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, dated February 4, 1809: "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries ..." Jefferson was apprehensive of government policies that would alter structurally the widespread economic equality of the new society.

      Conditions at the time of the founding of the nation were such that, with determination and hard work, everyone could carve out a decent living from the fertile land abundantly available, by producing most of the necessities of life. They needed to sell only a small portion of their surpluses to pay taxes and to buy gunpowder, salt, metal and a few luxuries such as tea and coffee and fine cloth. While some became richer than others, everyone was financially independent and not dependent on employment by others for livelihood. This was the American spirit of freedom and democracy, self-evident under conditions that have long since ceased to exist. Increasingly, Americans have been victimized by debt collection and foreclosure when their income and earnings potential are reduced by government policy induced structural changes in the national economy. The sanctity of private contracts, coupled with government policies that favor moneyed interests, increasingly threaten economy democracy and financial freedom in the name of free markets, which have become more free than market participants and non-participants. The myth of American freedom and democracy, however, endures.

      When 11 of the 13 original states adopted the US constitution, the people of nine of those 11 separate Free States believed that the constitution had been written in such a way as to protect their right to continue to practice all of the liberties that they had won from their colonial master as listed in the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence. That protection was based on the principle that any and all state constitutions in the Confederation were to be seen only as rules for the elected state leaders, not laws against the people. The US constitution was therefore also a job description for the elected leaders at the federal level, limiting them to the prescribed power to govern the states only in the areas outlined by the US constitution. The people of nine of the 11 Free States believed that the US constitution had been worded in such a way as to build a wall of protection around each state to protect the internal affairs of that state and the free people within it from federal intrusion.

      Applying this principle also to the state level meant that all other areas that had not been specifically assigned to the elected leaders of the individual states by state constitutions were to remain with the people of those states without question. They believed that there was no need for a Bill of Rights because they had stated in their founding document that a constitution could exist only as long as it produced a federal government that supported all the founding principles of their republic. For in the new constitution of their republic, the guarantee clause of "a republican form of government to each state" would always mean that the federal government was required to support the fundamental principle that each state was a Free State within the Confederation as in 1776, with the right to exist and operate as a free sovereign republic in all areas not listed in the federal constitution of the Confederation. The clause "a republican form of government" is the main clause in the constitution that prevents the federal government from consolidating the Free States into one national state. Because of that clause, the republic will always be seen as a Confederation of Free States and not as a consolidation of people into one super-state. The Confederation will always be known as "The United States of America" and not the "The United State of America", as noted in Hamilton`s Letter No 84 of The Federalist Papers and Madison`s Speech to Congress.

      Nine of the 13 Free States were convinced that existing protection was adequate; five ratified the constitution with the understanding that it should be amended with a Bill of Rights; two were not convinced at all. To obtain unity in the Confederation, James Madison had to compromise his position with the 11 states and introduce an additional Bill of Rights for additional protection in order to get the two remaining Free States to join the confederacy. The elected leaders of the 11 Free States had failed to convince those of the two remaining Free States that the guarantee of "a republican form of government" to each state was enough to protect individuals and their states from their federal government.

      "The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws," said Thomas Jefferson. "But our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others" (Jefferson Himself, edited by Bernard Mayo, page 81, University Press of Virginia). "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" (Jefferson`s Notes on Virginia, 2:229-30)

      God has always been present in US politics even though the separation of church and state is a founding principle of the Union. The Pilgrims came to America not to escape God but to search for freedom to found their own church. Yet the church, a clerical unit of religion, is an institutional preemption of the universality of God. When the First Amendment of the constitution mandates that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, it rejects only organized religion in the form of churches from politics, but not God.

      US democracy is a development of US history and a unique and peculiar form of government applicable only to conditions of the New World. Over the span of two centuries, those conditions have been fundamentally altered. As the United States has grown stronger, its citizens have over time surrendered more of the freedom that their forefathers had cherished, notwithstanding Americans` self-image as a free people. It is hard for the US to spread democracy abroad when democracy has been declining at home since its founding.

      For leaders such as Jefferson and Madison, the aim of Republicanism was to maintain the ideals of the independence movement: through popular government, based on the inalienable rights of man, to protect the interests of the masses rather than of a privileged upper class. They believed that the doctrine of "implied powers" would undermined the constitutional limitation of federal authority upon which popular liberty depended. The doctrine of "strict construction" of the meaning of the wording of the constitution was the guarantee for freedom.

      Alexander Hamilton was openly unsympathetic to the spirit of democracy. Hamilton, in his Report on Public Credit of 1790, recommended that the national debt ($50 million) inherited from the Confederation be funded at face value and that the federal government should also assume the debts of the states ($20 million). The Treasury should raise enough money through taxation to make regular interest payments and eventually to pay off the principal. Such a policy strengthened the federal government by winning support from all public creditors and provided the moneyed class with capital for new enterprises. The public opposed Hamilton`s plan because public debt certificates by then were held mostly by a small number of speculators who had bought up the debts from war veterans at heavily discounted rates, by as much as 80 percent. Hamilton considered this transfer of wealth from the masses to a select few as justifiable by the greater good of providing the quick capital formation needed by the budding economy. Congress voted in favor of Hamilton`s plan, aided by the fact that a majority of the House members themselves were speculative holders of public debt certificates.

      The proposal to assume state debts was passed by Congress, with Hamilton striking a deal with Jefferson to locate on the Potomac rather than further north of the young nation`s new capital, to be named after George Washington. Hamilton influenced the congressmen from Pennsylvania to drop their opposition to moving the capital from Philadelphia to Washington, while Jefferson influenced the congressmen from Virginia not to oppose Hamilton`s state-debt proposal. The deal held despite the fact that the debts of the northern states were much larger than those of the south, thus a federal assumption would benefit mainly northern businesses, many of which were financed by Philadelphia banks.

      In his Report on Taxation, Hamilton recommended that the government should raise money through an excise tax on whiskey, in addition to tariffs, not for moral or economic reasons, but to strengthen federal power throughout the back country. Hamilton viewed federal taxes as a development tool to force people to participate in the money economy by making it impossible for them to live merely by subsistence farming, the foundation of economic independence.

      Hamilton promoted the Bank of the United States to issue notes that would circulate paper money as legal tender, to extend government credit to enterprises to expand the economy. Jefferson opposed the bank on the grounds that the chartering of it had not been explicitly authorized by the constitution and the bank would give excessive power over the national economy to a small group of private investors at the expense of the masses. Hamilton nipped economic democracy in the new nation in the bud, and justified it as merely allocating sovereign credit to where it would do the most good for the national economy. Criticizing the laissez-faire doctrine of Adam Smith, Hamilton argued that infant industries in a young country needed protection and that the United States needed to protect itself from British economic hegemony with protective tariffs, grants of monopoly rights and direct subsidies to manufacturing through an industrial policy.

      In political theory, Hamilton believed in government by the wise, the rich and the well-born, and in aristocratic control as opposed to democracy. Historians acknowledge the Hamiltonian program as being primarily responsible for making the United States an industrial power by favoring the industrial and financial north over the agricultural south. The resultant divergence of economic interests expressed itself in political conflicts that finally erupted in the Civil War almost a century later, in 1861.

      Henry Clay`s American System took Hamilton`s program of economic nationalism away from the upper class elite and offered it to the masses by making the federal authority a champion of the people, rather than a captured device of narrow sectional interests. Through representative democracy advocated by Jefferson, Clay advocated measures designed to strengthen the young nation, enhancing its economic independence from foreign countries with protective tariffs, and promoted national unity by developing a reciprocal relationship between agriculture and industry and the establishment of a nation bank to finance domestic development. Internationalist shipping interests in New England, represented in Congress by Daniel Webster, opposed Clay`s program of economic nationalism.

      With the growth of nationalism after the War of 1812, the US Supreme Court under chief justice John Marshall, a Hamiltonian with a deep distrust of democracy, gave legal confirmation to the expansion of federal authority. In the case of McCulloch vs Maryland in 1819, the court affirmed Hamilton`s "implied power" theory of the constitution and asserted that the federal government was fully sovereign within its own sphere and not merely a creature of the states. The judiciary, composed of nine men who defied historical facts, asserted that the United Stated had been created by the people, not by the states, based primarily on the first sentence of the constitution, which reads: "We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union ...", notwithstanding that the document was signed by the states. The court further ruled that in pursuing any end that was legitimate and constitutional, the federal government could adopt any means not explicitly prohibited by the constitution. Rule by law as interpreted by nine politically appointed justices has since been the modus operandi of the US political system, not rule of law.

      The current occupant of the White House owes his tenancy to the Supreme Court, not to the voters, the majority (by 539,897 votes) of those who actually voted (103,380,929) did not vote for him, and 48.8 percent of those eligible to vote did not bother to vote at all. The claim that US prosperity and power come from democracy and freedom is not substantiated by historical facts. Having risen to the status of superpower through central authority and economic nationalism, the United States now regards other nations that follow the historical US model, rather than the myth of American democracy and freedom, with moralistic hostility.

      China, on the other hand, has always been governed by the concept of a Mandate of Heaven, based on precepts of primitive communism organized through a hierarchical social order and a central political authority. The Chinese nation was not founded on any written constitution drafted by a few individuals, however enlightened. Freedom is not an indigenous social or political concept in traditional Chinese culture. While local autonomy and tolerance for indigenous customs have always been the modus operandi in Chinese government structure, the concept of "free states" is alien to China`s political culture, as is the concept of free individualism in Chinese social philosophy. Confucianism sees as its main function the curbing of runaway individualism and the prevention of atrophy in social hierarchy.

      The economic miracle of the so-called Asian Tigers of the 1990, which ended with the 1997 Asian financial crisis engineered from outside the region, was built not on Western-style democracy, but on revitalized Confucianism. And the miracle was nearly destroyed by Western free-market fundamentalism. China, like other developing economies, needs a Hamiltonian program of central authority and economic nationalism to resist US hegemony just as the young US nation did to resist British hegemony.

      Societies express freedom in different historical and social contexts. It is when freedom is curtailed below the level of societal expectation that people feel deprived of freedom. The image Americans hold of themselves as being more free than other people is merely collective narcissism. In reality, they are merely more free in their own peculiar ways. Many Americans, for example, have been conditioned to view freedom from want as not part of their natural right even though the means of individual economic self-sufficiency have been systematically taken away from them by corporate capitalism since the nation`s founding. Today, US workers become unemployed not because they are freeloaders but because management preserves profits through massive layoffs that are rationalized as improved productivity. The high return on investments held in their own retirement accounts are driving workers into unemployment. A sound economic model would have improved productivity translated into economic growth with more demand for workers rather than increased unemployment.

      In China, the issue of political freedom did not occupy a high place in any political debate prior to the influx of Western cultural hegemony. In Chinese culture, individual freedom is regarded as a form of antisocial attitude and democracy as a form of mob rule. No Chinese dynasty was ever founded on freedom and democracy; all were founded on order, stability, benevolence and tolerance. Governments fell not from failing to receive a majority of votes, but from their failure to fulfill the Mandate of Heaven, which is linked to people`s right of freedom from want. In a society of social hierarchy, people are not conditioned to blame themselves for their economic failings; they rightly blame ineffective government and the unjust socio-political system. In Chinese political culture, massive unemployment cannot be explained away as structurally inevitable by economic rationalization, let alone the claim that it is necessary to combat inflation to reserve the value of money.

      The Nationalist Revolution of 1911 led by Sun Yatsen, a Chinese-American, a medical doctor and a Christian, imported Abraham Lincoln`s rhetorical "of the people, by the people, for the people" to Chinese revolutionary politics with the same naivete as his campaign against Buddhist superstition through Christian fanaticism, with the approving support of American missionaries. The revolution failed because it offered a solution that was irrelevant to Chinese historical conditions. It fell to Mao Zedong, who understood that the fate of the Chinese nation was inseparable from the welfare of the Chinese peasants, to save China from Western oppression.

      The current revival of the US crusade of making the world safe for freedom and democracy in its own image is a dangerous delusion of grandeur. Like all crusades in the past, this one will also cause great destruction and misery.

      The historical Crusades were a long series of military expeditionary campaigns with a religious pretext sanctioned by the pope that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. They began as Catholic endeavors to capture from the Muslims holy Jerusalem, which the Christians had never controlled politically in their entire history, even during Jesus` triumphant entry into the city almost two millennia ago. The Crusades developed into extended territorial wars devoid of Christian morals. Later Crusades were called against the remaining pagan nations of Europe such as the Polabians, a member of a Slavic people formerly dwelling in the basin of the Elbe and on the Baltic coast of Germany and Lithuania, and against heresy, as in the Crusade against Bohemia of 1418-37.

      The Crusades gave birth to nationalism in Europe that subsequently plunged the world into the Napoleonic Wars and the two World Wars of the 20th century. They allowed the papacy to consolidate its systematic dominion over the known world. They demoralized the Crusaders rather than saving the souls of those against whom they crusaded. They changed Christian Europe more than the Islamic Middle East. They weakened Christianity more than Islam. When the Crusades began, feudalism was the social order in Europe. When the Crusades finally closed more than two centuries later, feudalism was in decay throughout Europe, and had largely disappeared from the most progressive parts of it. The war needs of the petty knights and great nobles led to the pawn or sale of their estates, and their prolonged absence gave previously weak sovereigns a rare opportunity to extend their authority. And in the adjoining camps of national armies on Islamic soil, pride of nation became a destructive force.

      European kings gained power through the Crusades by consolidating the nobles under them. Towns grew as serfs bought their freedom by serving in the Crusades and bringing back ill-gained wealth. Towns were granted charters in the king`s absence or by the king`s need for money to support the wars. Town merchants benefited from increased war expenditures and loaned money to finance costly expeditions. The Crusades forged the birth of capitalism and the increased use of coined money and established a gold standard in Europe, which plunged the European economy into prolonged depressions. National taxes, not just feudal fees, were established.

      European culture was enriched by war contacts with the East. The cotton paper-making process replaced importing parchment; the amount of writing increased, laying the foundation for the Enlightenment. The handkerchief, an Arab invention, was introduced to Europe. The guitar and the violin were introduced, and Arabic numerals, decimals and spherical trigonometry, algebra, sine and tangent, physics and astronomy, the pendulum, optics and the telescope all benefited European culture, albeit at excruciatingly high cost.

      George W Bush`s new Crusade may also change the United States more than the rest of the world. When his new Crusade finally ends, capitalism, like feudalism of the old Crusades, may well subside if not disappear from the world, and a new economic democracy aspired to by the founders of the US may well be revived.

      The Crusades failed in all three of their geopolitical objectives. The European Christians failed to win the Holy Land. They also failed to check the global advance of Islam. The schism between the East and the West in the Christian world was not healed by the focus on a common foe. Eastern Orthodox Christians saw the Crusades as attacks also on them by the Western Church of Rome, especially after the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade. Countries of Central Europe, despite the fact that they also belonged to Western Christianity, were the most skeptical about the idea of Crusades. Many cities in Hungary were sacked by passing Crusader armies. Poland and Hungary were subjected to conquest from the Teutonic Crusaders.

      There is symmetry between crusade and jihad. In the Islamic world, the term "jihad" has positive connotations that include a much broader meaning of general personal and spiritual struggle, while the term "crusade" has negative connotations. In truth, the Crusaders committed atrocities not just against Muslims but also against Jews and even other Christians. For example, the Fourth Crusade never made it to Palestine, but instead sacked Constantinople, the capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire. Many religious relics and artifacts taken from Constantinople are still in the hands of Roman Catholics, in the Vatican and elsewhere. This Crusade served to deepen the hard feelings between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity. The Byzantine Empire eventually recovered Constantinople, but its strength never fully recovered, and the Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Ottomans in 1453.

      The saintly objectives of the Crusades were transformed into causes of great evil. As a school of practical religion and morals, the Crusades were no doubt disastrous for most of the Crusaders. The campaigns were attended by all the usual demoralizing influences of war and the long sojourn of armies in an enemy`s country.

      The vices of the crusading camps were a source of deep shame in Europe. Popes lamented them. Like Robert McNamara, who almost single-handedly led the United States into a quagmire of fantasy escalation to win an unwinnable war in Vietnam and later confessed his errors and regrets in public long after retirement, Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) exposed the evils of the Crusades long after he preached in favor of a Second Crusade. At Easter 1146 at Vezelay, Bernard preached his sermon in front of King Louis VII of France, who became inspired to take up the cross and spent the years 1147-49 conducting the Second Crusade. Many writers have since set forth the fatal mistake of those who were eager to make a conquest of the earthly Jerusalem while forgetful of the City of God as annunciated by Saint Augustine. "Many wended their way to the holy city, unmindful that our Jerusalem is not here." So wrote the Englishman Walter Map after Saladin`s victories in 1187.

      The schism between the East and the West was widened by the insolent action of the popes in establishing Latin patriarchates in the East and their consent to the establishment of the Latin empire of Constantinople. The institutional memory of the indignities heaped upon Greek emperors and ecclesiastics has not yet faded. Another evil was the deepening of the contempt and hatred in the minds of the Mohammedans for the doctrines of Christianity. The savagery of the Christian soldiers, their unscrupulous treatment of property, and the bitter rancor in the crusading camps were a disgraceful spectacle that left a lasting and bitter image for the peoples of the East. While the Crusades were still in progress, the objection was made in Western Europe that they were not followed by spiritual fruits, but that on the contrary, the Saracens, who had invaded France in the 8th century and occupied Sicily from the 9th to the 11th century, were converted to blasphemy rather than to the faith.

      The Crusades gave occasion for the rapid development of the system of papal indulgences, which became a dogma of the medieval theologians. The practice, once begun by Urban II at the very outset of the movement, was extended further and further until indulgence for sins was promised not only for the warrior who took up arms against the Saracens in the East, but for those who were willing to fight against Christian heretics in Western Europe. Indulgences became a part of the very heart of the sacrament of penance, and did incalculable damage to the moral sense of Christendom. To this evil was added the exorbitant taxation levied by the popes and their emissaries. Matthew of Paris, an English historian and a monk of St Albans, in his Chronica majora complained of this extortion for the expenses of the Crusades as a stain upon that holy cause.

      As for the Crusades` contribution to the development of commerce, the enterprise of the Italian ports would in time have developed by normal incentives of Eastern trade and the natural impulse of marine enterprise even without the Crusades. The spell of ignorance and narrow prejudice would have been broken without war, and to the mind of Western Europe, a new horizon of thought and acquisition would have opened, and within that horizon would have lain the institutions and ambitions of modern Western civilization. The modernity that liberated the West, which some Western scholars accuse the Muslim world of lacking, was in no small way detonated by exposure to Eastern culture. After the lapse of six centuries and more, the Crusades still have their stirring negative lessons of wisdom and warning that the Bush team would do well to examine.

      The United States hopes to see China as a reluctant ally in its crusade against terrorism, notwithstanding the fact that prior to September 11, 2001, when terrorism hit US soil on a devastating scale, the US was covertly sponsoring anti-China terrorism by separatists. Terrorism is not a universal problem, notwithstanding claims to that effect from US neo-conservatives. The terrorism faced by the two nations is fundamentally different: that against China is from separatist forces, until recently sponsored by the US, while that against the US is from diverse forces opposed to US global hegemony. Since September 11, the US has hoped to see China as an important ally in its war on global terrorism, while China sees the US anti-terrorism campaign as a chance to improve relations with the US and perhaps moderate ongoing anti-China postures on the part of the US. Both nations hope that cooperation against terrorism can serve as a new strategic framework for US-China relations.

      Yet the legacy of the past has all but ruled out an objective, realistic US policy toward China. US policymakers have carried into the 21st century a legacy of the US-China relationship as an unequal one between patron and client, in which moralizing coercion is a necessary part. Good versus evil remains a vocal theme in US policy on China.

      Yet sanitized of past illusion, a symbiotic relationship between the US and China is not only possible, but also rational, precisely because the two nations are different in ways that need not be threatening to each other. To move on to that track, the United States needs to stop viewing China through the eyes of an ideological missionary and deal with China on its own terms. China will not change its national character merely to appease US national prejudice, any more than the US will sacrifice its national interests to appease China.

      There are, however, residual Cold War issues that continue to lock US-China relations on an unconstructive path that holds more costs than benefits for both sides. The most serious of these is the issue of Taiwan, which has been a de facto US aggression against Chinese sovereignty for more than five decades. Without a quick and constructive resolution of the Taiwan issue, the future of the US-China relationship cannot lead to any positive outcome. And quite possibly, it may end in war.


      Next: The Taiwan time bomb

      Henry C K Liu is chairman of the New York-based Liu Investment Group.

      (Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contactcontent@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 12:28:46
      Beitrag Nr. 10.223 ()
      Der Preis der freien Meinungsäußerung bezüglich Irak-Krieg
      von Robert Fisk
      Independent / ZNet 26.11.2003


      Im Irak sind sie Nummern - Blutspuren auf der Straße. Nicht so in der kleinen Stadt Madison in Wisconsin. Letzte Woche, auf der Titelseite der lokalen Presse, der ‘Capital Times’, wurden sie auf einmal ganz real: Sergeant Warren Hansen, Specialist Eugene Uhl und Second Lieutenant Jeremy Wolfe von der 101sten Airborne-Division. Drei Männer - auf ihrer letzten Reise in die Heimat. Auch Hansens Vater starb beim Militär. Und Uhl wäre an ‘Thanksgiving’ 22 geworden. Er hatte nach Hause geschrieben, er habe ein “schlechtes Gefühl”. Sein Vater kämpfte in Vietnam, sein Großvater im Zweiten Weltkrieg und in Korea. Zwei der drei Männer starben beim Helikopter-Absturz über Tikrit vor etwas über einer Woche. Unser Held im “Krieg gegen den Terror”, Präsident Bush, wird selbstverständlich nicht zur Beerdigung gehen. Der Mann, der es ablehnte, der Nation im Vietnamkrieg zu dienen, dafür aber jetzt 146 000 junge Amerikaner in das größte Rattennest des Mittleren Ostens schickte, geht nicht auf Beerdigungen - und Journalisten tun das natürlich auch nicht. Die amerikanischen TV-Sender haben aus Schwäche die jüngste Entscheidung des Pentagon akzeptiert, keine Särge von aus dem Irak heimgekehrten jungen Amerikanern zu zeigen. Die Toten dürfen heimkehren - aber sie tun es praktisch im Verborgenen.

      Doch die Dinge ändern sich. Als ich letzte Woche in Madison einen Vortrag hielt, antwortete das Publikum - mehr als 1000 Leute - mit tosendem Beifall, als ich anmerkte, der Irak-Krieg könnte George Bushs Chancen auf Wiederwahl im nächsten Jahr doch noch zunichte machen. Im Publikum erhob sich ein junger Mann. Er sagte, sein Bruder sei Soldat im Irak. Er habe nach Hause geschrieben, der Krieg laufe chaotisch, Amerikaner sollten nicht im Irak sterben. Nach dem Vortrag zeigte mir der junge Mann ein Bild seines Bruders - ein hochgewachsener Offizier der 82sten Airborne, mit Sonnenbrille und einem M-16-Gewehr. Er übergab mir eine Botschaft des Soldaten, der wolle mich nächsten Monat in Bagdad treffen. Ich muss aufpassen, den Namen nicht zu nennen. Diejenigen in Amerika, die die Leute im Dunkeln halten wollen, sind immer noch auf ihrem Posten.

      Da ist der Fall Drew Plummer aus North Carolina. In seinem letzten Jahr auf der Highschool hatte er sich (bei der Armee) eingeschrieben - drei Monate vor dem 11. September 2001. Als er auf Heimaturlaub kam, nahm Drew Plummer zusammen mit Vater Lou an einer “Bringt-unsere-Soldaten-heim”-Wache teil. Lou Plummer war früher bei der 2ten US-Panzerdivision. Und sein Vater kämpfte - anders als Mr. Bush - in Vietnam. Ein Reporter der Associated Press fragte Drew Plummer, was er so über Irak denke. Der antwortete: “Ich bin einfach nicht einverstanden mit dem, was wir dort im Moment tun. Ich denke nicht, dass unsere Jungs im Irak sterben sollten. Aber ich bin auch kein Pazifist. Ich leiste meinen Beitrag”. Armeeangehörige in Amerika zahlen heutzutage einen hohen Preis für freie Meinungsäußerung. Die US-Navy verklagte Drew Plummer. Er habe gegen Artikel 134 des ‘Uniform Code of Military Justice’ verstoßen: ‘Disloyal Statements’ (unloyale Äußerungen). Bei seiner offiziellen Anhörung wurde Plummer gefragt, ob er mit dem Feind “sympathisiere” oder sich “Sabotageakte” überlege. Er wurde verurteilt und degradiert. Nach wie vor verleugnet die US-Presse Dinge dieser Art. Wie verräterisch beispielsweise die hohe Zahl schwerverletzter Soldaten, die aus dem Irak in die USA heimgeholt werden. Mittlerweile sind es fast 2 200. Viele verloren Gliedmaßen oder haben Gesichtsverletzungen erlitten. Insgesamt liegt die Zahl der medizinischen Evakuierungen von Irak-Soldaten bei fast 7 000 - viele haben psychische Probleme. All diese Fakten offenbarte das Pentagon in Washington einer Gruppe französischer Diplomaten. Die französische Presse nahm sich der Story an. Nicht so die Presse der Kleinstadt Amerika - wo jeder, der die Wahrheit über Irak sagen will, sofort angegriffen wird. Das Pentagon plant, bis 2006 100 000 GIs im Irak zu behalten; währenddessen versuchen unsere Stars des Journalismus, das Feuer des Patriotismus mit einer neuen Propaganda-Strategie zu schüren - einer, die einen noch mehr frösteln macht. Eine der übelsten Behauptungen wurde kürzlich in der New York Times veröffentlicht. David Brooks sagt dort, Saddams Folterer griffen US- Soldaten an (einige seiner Geheimdienstler arbeiten inzwischen für die Besatzungsarmee, aber das ist eine andere Geschichte). Und mit dieser Behauptung verbindet er: “die Geschichte zeigt, die Amerikaner sind bereit, Opfer zu bringen. Echte Zweifel kommen uns erst, wenn wir sehen, wie wir sie anderen zufügen. Aber was wird aus der nationalen Stimmung werden, wenn unsere Nachrichtenprogramme Bilder brutaler Maßnahmen zeigen, die unsere eigenen Truppen anwenden müssen? Unzweifelhaft sind da Gräuel (zu sehen), die viele gutherzige Menschen dazu bringen werden, die Sache im Stich zu lassen... Irgendwie... muss uns die Bush-Administration immer und immer wieder daran erinnern, Irak ist die ‘Schlacht um Midway’* in diesem Krieg gegen den Terror...”

      Was um alles in der Welt will uns dieser üble Blödsinn sagen? Warum stellt die New York Times Zeilenplatz zur Verfügung, um Kriegsverbrechen, verübt durch die Hand von US-Soldaten zu verteidigen? Wobei ich bezweifle, dass US-Sender überhaupt irgendwelche Bilder “brutaler Maßnahmen” zeigen werden. Sie hatten die Chance und haben sie nicht genutzt. Aber ‘Gräuel’? Heißt das, dass wir jetzt ‘Gräuel’ gegen “den Abschaum der Welt” (wie Mr. Brooks die Aufständischen nennt) unterstützen sollen - in unserem moralischen Feldzug gegen das Böse? Bei all dem Schmutz sollten wir uns an die simple Courage eines Drew Plummer erinnern. Und behalten Sie folgende Namen im Gedächtnis: Army Private First Class Rachel Bosveld (19), Army Specialist Paul Sturino (21), Army Reservist Dan Gabrielson (40), Army Major Mathew Shram (36), Marine Sergeant Kirk Strasekie (23). Auch sie aus Wisconsin. Auch sie starben im Irak.

      Anmerkung der Übersetzerin

      *eine entscheidende Seeschlacht (1942) des Zweiten Weltkriegs zwischen Japan und den USA





      [ Übersetzt von: Andrea Noll | Orginalartikel: "The Price of Free Speech on the Iraq War" ]
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 12:30:37
      Beitrag Nr. 10.224 ()
      Bush: Er lügt wenn er den Mund auftut
      von John Pilger
      New Statesman / ZNet 21.11.2003


      Am Gedenksonntag, kurz vor Bush`s desatrösen Besuch in Großbritanien, war Blair am Denkmal für den unbekannten Soldaten. Er bot den ungewöhnlichen und flüchtigen Anblick eines "Staats Killers" dessen Ansehen nichts mehr gilt. Sein Gesichtsausdruck war schuldbewusst, als er sich oberflächlich vor den "glorreichen Toten" verneigte. William Howard Russel von der Times schrieb über einen Premier Minister der verantwortlich für das Gemetzel auf der Krim war: "Er bewegt sich wie einer mit Blut an den Händen". Blair hielt sich nicht lange auf nachdem er mit einstudierter Mine der Königin, deren Vorrecht es ihm ermöglichte seine Verbrechen im Irak zu begehen, seinen Respekt gezollt hatte. "Schleich dich nach Hause, und bete das du niemals die Hölle kennen lernst in die unsere Jugend in ihrer Unbekümmertheit geht." schrieb Siegfried Sasson im Jahre 1917.

      Blair weiss das sein Spiel zuende geht. Bush`s Empfang in Großbritannien demonstrierte dies und die CIA beschreibt den Widerstand im Trak als "umfassend, stark und wird stärker", ca. 50000 Widerständler schätzt man. "Wir könnten in dieser Situation verlieren," wird an das Weisse Haus berichtet. Das Ziel sollte sein für das "Endstadium zu planen".

      Ihre Lügen sind zur Satire geworden. Bush erzählte David Frost, die Welt müsse wirklich ihre Ansichten über Saddam Hussein`s nukleare Waffen ändern, da die "modernster Art" seien. Besonders war ich von Donald Rumsfeld`s Einschätzung begeistert, als er sagte: "Die Botschaft ist, daß es bekannte Bekanntheiten gibt - d.h. es gibt Dinge von denen wir wissen, daß wir von ihnen wissen. Dann gibt es bekannte Unbekanntheiten - d.h. Dinge von denen wir heute wissen, daß wir es nicht wissen. Aber dann gibt es noch die unbekannten Unbekanntheiten ...... Dinge von denen wir nicht wissen, daß wir nichts von ihnen wissen. Aber jedes Jahr endecken wir ein paar mehr dieser unbekannten Unbekanntheiten."

      In einer noch nie in dieser Art dagewesenen Zusammenkunft früherer amerikanischer Geheimdienstler und Pentagonbeamten in Washington hat, in den Worten von Ray McGovern, eines ehemaligen CIA Analysten und Freund von Bush`s Vater, festgestellt: "Wir wissen jetzt, daß noch nie ein amerikanischer President so oft, unverschämt und nachweisbar gelogen hat. ......Wir können daher davon ausgehen, daß er jederzeit wenn er etwas sagt, bereit ist zu lügen.

      Blair und sein Außenminister wagen es auch noch darauf hinzuweisen daß die Millionen Menschen die mit der Bush Bande nicht einverstanden sind, "Zeitgeist gemäß, anti-amerikanisch seien". Ein aufschlußreiches Beispiel ihrer Verlogenheit demonstrierte kürzlich Jack Straw. Auf BBC Radio 4, versuchte er Washingtons Lehre eines "präventiven Kriegs" zu veteidigen. Straw erzählte dem Interviewer: "Artikel 51 [der UN Charta], auf welchen sie sich gerade bezogen - sie sagten, sie würde sich nur auf Selbst-Verteidigung beziehen - in Wirklichkeit geht die Charta weiter und bezieht sich auf das Recht von Staaten "präventive Aktionen" zu unternehmen.

      Straw log. Keines seiner Worte war wahr. Artikel 51 bezieht sich nicht auf ein "Recht von Staaten präventive Aktionen zu unternehmen" oder etwas ähnliches. Nirgendwo findet man in der UN Charta etwas derartiges erwähnt. Artikle 51 bezieht sich nur auf "das Grundrecht individueller und kollektiver Selbstverteidigung sollte ein bewaffneter Angriff erfolgen" und im weiteren schränkt der Artikel dieses Recht sogar noch ein. Darüberhinaus wurde die UN Charta so gestaltet, daß ein beanspruchtes Recht auf einen präventiven Krieg ungesetzlich ist.

      Mit anderen Worten, der Außenminister fabrizierte eine Bedingung die es in der UN-Charta gar nicht gibt und verbreitete sie als Tatsache. Wenn Straw die Wahrheit spricht verbreitet er Angst und Schrecken. Kürzlich gab er zu, Bush habe ihn zu den kritischen Gesprächen mit dem US Vizekönig von Bagdhad, Paul Bremer, nicht konsultiert. Straw sagte, er wäre zu den "Gesprächen mit Bremer nicht eingeladen gewesen". Die Abschrift des Auswärtigen Amtes zu dem Vorgang erwähnt nicht die Beschwerde Straw`s, "die USA und das UK sind die Besatzungsmächte und wir müssen uns dieser Verantwortung stellen". Die Mißachtung der USA gegenüber ihres treuesten Vasallen war niemals offensichtlicher.

      Beide sind nun am Verzweifeln. Die panischen Reaktionen des Bush Regimes erinnern an israelische Rachefeldzüge. Mit F-16 Flugzeugen werden 500 kg Bomben auf zivile Wohngegenden, genannt "Verdachtszonen" abgeworfen. Amerikanische Soldaten verbrennen die Ernte der Bauern: auch eine israelische Taktik. Die Parallelen sind nun Palästina und Vietnam; mehr Amerikaner sind im Irak gestorben, als in den ersten drei Jahren in Vietnam

      Für Bush und Blair wird es nicht genügen auf das "Heldentum unserer wundervollen Truppen zu verweisen". Dieser populistische Zauber wird diesmal keine Wunder wirken. "Mein Mann ist vergeblich gestorben" heißt die Schlagzeile des Independent vom vergangenen Sonntag. Lianne Seymour, die Witwe des Kommandeurs Ian Seymour, sagt: "Sie haben die Jungs in die Irre geführt. Man kann nicht einfach ein Unrecht begehen und darauf hoffen später eine Begründung dafür zu finden." Die moralische Logik ihrer Worte wird von einer Mehrheit der Briten geteilt, wenn auch nicht vom immer kleiner werdenden Hofstaat Blair`s. Wie heruntergekommen erscheint da doch der kriegshetzeriche Konkurrent des Independent, der Observer, mit seinen Boulevardgeschichten und Händeringen, nachdem er sich seiner stolzen liberalen Tradition entledigt hat.

      "Die da unten", die toten und leidenden Iraker sind es nicht wert auf unsere Titelseiten zu kommen, genausowenig wie der Amnesty International Report der amerikanische und britische Truppen der Folter bezichtigt. Ermittler von Amnesty International haben Berichte von 20 ehemaligen Gefangenen aufgenommen. "In einem Falle ist die Rede von Elektroshocks.....wenn Sie jemanden die ganze Nacht über schlagen und jemand blutet und Zähne brechen, dann ist das mehr wie eine Tracht Prügel," sagte der Amnesty International Rechercheur, "Ich denke das ist Folter." Die Amerikaner halten 4000 Gefangene fest - mehr, so wird geschätzt, als Sadam Hussein jemals in seinen Folterkammern hatte.

      Während Bush in London warK, vertagte Baroness Symons, Staatssekretärin im Auswärtigen Amt, wieder einmal ein seit langem geplantes Treffen mit Familien von englischen Staatsbürgern die im amerikanischen Konzentrationslager, Guantanamo Bay auf Kuba gefangen gehalten werden. Dies ist ihr schon zur Gewohnheit geworden. Die Familien und ihre Rechtsanwälte wollen Fragen stellen wegen angeblicher Folter, dem sich verschlechternden mentalen Gesundheitszustand der Gefangenen und der Kriminalisierung der muslemischen Bevölkerung Großbritanniens. Nun schon zwei Jahre gefangengehalten in Guantanamo, wird diesen englischen Staatsbürgern ihr Recht auf ein ordendliches Verfahren vorenthalten und an den amerikanischen Kriegsherrn delegiert.

      Blair`s Probleme fangen erst an. Es gibt Anzeichen eines Shiiten- Aufstands im südlichen Irak, dem Besatzungsgebiet der Engländer. Es heißt eine shiitische Untergrundarmee formiert sich, still und geduldig, wie es schon unter dem Shah des Iran der Fall war. Falls dieser Aufstand zustande kommt, wird noch viel mehr Blut an den Händen des Premierministers kleben bleiben.

      Zum 11 November, am Remembrance Day, (Gedenktag für die toten Soldaten der Kriege)schrieb Hywel Williams einen ergreifenden Artikel über "Die verwertbare Vergangenheit - Zeiten, die in Propaganda gepackt werden können . . . [durch diejenigen] die Interessen und eigene Karrieren zu fördern haben . . . Wir sind jetzt ein Land, dekoriert mit dem Unkraut des Krieges . . . Die Erinnerung an die Toten ist nicht mehr eine saisonale Angelegenheit, sondern sie wird zu einem kontinuierlichen Totenfest, indem individuelle Seelen in die Rechtfertigung aller british-amerikanischer Kriege gepresst werden. Es scheint kein Ende für dieses Leid zu geben.

      Ja, aber nur wenn wir nichts dagegen tun.

      Dank an Jim Brann





      [ Übersetzt von: Helmut Fiedler | Orginalartikel: "I Know When Bush Is Lying: His Lips Move" ]
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 12:44:16
      Beitrag Nr. 10.225 ()

      Kevin Kallaugher (Kal), Baltimore, Maryland -- The Baltimore Sun


      Kirk Anderson, Minnesota --


      Chris Britt, Springfield, IL -- The State Journal-Register


      Matt Davies, The Journal News


      Walt Handelsman, Long Island, NY, Newsday
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 13:24:06
      Beitrag Nr. 10.226 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/features/outdoors/la-120803outdoors-f…

      Ein wenig Wid-West-Romantik mit schönen Bildern s.o.(Kostenfrei registrieren!)

      http://www.latimes.com/features/outdoors/la-os-endure9dec09,…


      Long trail, little glory
      Endurance horses are ridden hard but never put up wet. The bond between riders and their mounts is usually too strong. Still, sometimes competitive fury proves fatal, as Janet Wilson reports.
      By Janet Wilson

      December 9, 2003

      Steve Hoeft sways back and forth with exhaustion. Nine hours and 85 miles in the saddle. Fifteen miles to go. Victory. Right there. Except that Crockett Dumas, one of the cagiest endurance riders alive, is out there in the dark desert, closing in.

      Denny sags too. Shivers ripple across the stallion`s sweat-drenched coat. But the chestnut`s heartbeat is strong.

      "You feel pretty good about your horse?" one of the veterinarians asks at this, the last of five mandatory rest stops in the 2003 national endurance riding championship.

      "I don`t know what I think anymore," says Hoeft, a self-employed builder in this hamlet north of Reno, and the hometown favorite.

      Hoeft wants to win this race. Badly. Still, he asks, "Do you have a trailer if I need to take him out of here?"

      The veterinarians glance at each other. Too many horses are dying in this increasingly popular and competitive sport. They`ve just pulled one and have been carefully eyeing Denny and another horse being ridden — perhaps too hard — by a willful 15-year-old girl. But veterinarian Jamie Kerr has judged countless rides. He knows Hoeft is not the sort of egotist who will ride a horse till it collapses.

      "You`ve got 14 minutes, Steve … come back and see me then," he says. When Hoeft trots Denny back out, the veterinarians nod. "He`s really tired, but he`s OK," says Kerr. "But you`re going to have to take it slow, Steve, no matter who comes up behind you."

      "He`s gonna be up over me like a pack of wolves," Hoeft says. Shunning the saddle to keep weight off the horse, he jogs Denny out of the rest stop just as Crockett Dumas rides in.

      Love and death

      Distance riding has been tangled up in heroic myth since its inception — which probably dates to when humans first began climbing on horses` backs. Organized endurance riding was born in the U.S. 49 years ago, with a bet that modern steeds couldn`t do what Pony Express teams accomplished — cover 100 miles in a day. Recently, the sport has been suffering growing pains.

      Last year, more than 6,000 endurance riders trotted and galloped across a combined 782,000 miles of open country in 770 races nationwide. Many of those, traditionalists note ruefully, were 25-mile canters favored by yuppies out for a weekend thrill. But even those jaunts pose one of the sport`s biggest challenges: trying to stitch together routes, a task that gets tougher each time a developer dices up another parcel of open land.

      Overseas, oil-rich sheiks are getting caught up in their own mythology. Inspired by images of noble steeds kicking up the dust of Arabian deserts, they`re pouring money into the sport and joining a cadre of Europeans who are pushing for it to be a televised Olympic event.

      As the sport gets more competitive (some championships are now broken into four riders` divisions, featherweight to heavyweight) another problem has arisen. Horses are dying. Six have perished at high-profile U.S. events this year, including one that had to be euthanized the morning after the prestigious Pan American Endurance Championship in September. At the World Equestrian Games in Spain last year, two endurance horses dropped dead of exhaustion.

      "Endurance riding is probably the most fun thing you can do on a horse," said Dane Frazier, a Lebanon, Mo., veterinarian who works with equine regulatory groups. "But there is risk."

      Endurance riding is a joyful, four-step slow dance over trails, open desert or winding fire roads, a crazy, jouncing beat that leaves minds numb and thighs tender for days. It`s tough on riders, but the horses do the hard part. Serious riders know every inch of their animals. Lightweight, strap-on monitors about the size of wristwatches link many racers` arms to their horses` hearts. When the vital signs move out of healthy range into aerobic deficit, a rider knows. Riders are also obsessed with their animals` intake and outflow. At one rest stop, Michel Bloch, a French crepe maker from Cool, Calif., pauses and raises a finger, politely requesting silence for a sacred moment. His horse, Monsieur Joseph, is about to urinate. The clear, light stream means all systems are go.

      Endurance rides in the U.S. are laced with required rest times and "vet checks," similar to Formula One pit stops. Veterinarians armed with stethoscopes move swiftly from horse to horse, checking gums to anus. If a horse doesn`t trot cleanly, if its heartbeat is too high and its eye too dull, it`s out.

      The best endurance horses are often runty Arabians that flunked out at the racetrack, too excitable to run just two minutes. Arabians have hearts as big as basketballs, evolved over millenia on hot Bedouin sands. But they have limits. Too little food, cold water hitting a stomach wrong, even poor genetics, and a horse can "crash."

      "There`s always that little black cloud hanging over your head, asking, `Am I asking too much of him?` " says Dumas, 57, who has raced 25,000 miles and "never had a horse go belly up."

      Watching horses jockey for position, hearing their aggressive snorts and whinnies, leaves little doubt that their primal instincts are as pleasantly revved as their riders`.

      "The horse loves it. Just loves being out there doing the miles," says Hoeft, 52. "This is what he`s made for."

      Camptown races

      In the darkness before the ride, Dumas, jocular and expansive, sang out greetings to "pretty ladies" as he prepared himself and his horse. A retired Alaskan park ranger who "once spent the night rassling a grizzle bear," he sports a huge handlebar mustachio and cowboy hat, entitled to the affectation as the owner of a Utah ranch where he grows his own hay and breeds his own Arabians. Nessous, the loyal horse beneath him, is a descendant of the oldest equine bloodlines on earth, called "Drinkers of the Wind."

      Endurance race base camps bustle with an Old West meets Kampgrounds of America ambience. Dogs frolic, the aromas of urine and sweet hay waft and rock `n` roll drifts from giant speakers. Men and women sport ponytails and tights. And at the center of it all are the horses, their names like fairy tales: Always a Star, Maximum Potential, Kings Flash, Gandhi, Omar`s Apatchee. Penned in temporary corrals after rattling hundreds of miles in narrow trailers, they munch wordlessly on "smorgys" of oat hay, alfalfa and carrots — the equivalent of a marathon runner`s pasta feast.

      As Dumas saddled up and flirted, Hoeft galloped in the cakey dirt, eschewing conversation. Then they and 34 others were off, hooves churning up whorls of sage-scented dust in the "danged cold" 27-degree dawn. The last rider would cross the line more than 20 hours later.

      Thirty-two miles in, Monsieur Joseph had the lead. "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse," Bloch called out on the trail. "Peace and love." During the hour rest stop, the little horse stuck his nose deep in a pail of feed, then dozed off. The horse would not be happy to be awakened, Bloch said. "He thinks we are done."

      By midafternoon, the sun slanted low, pouring down the steep hills rimming Bedell Flat, a vast, silent desert expanse. Gray green sagebrush turned molten gold. Spread out over 40 miles, the horses trotted steadily through a peaceable kingdom of light and sky. Herds of wild mustangs turned their heads and watched. The Dogskin Mountains uncurled on the horizon. The horses were losing the spring in their step. Hoeft fell behind Bloch and two other front-runners. Clip clop, clip clop. No sign of Dumas.

      Dark slices across the desert. The temperature drops 19 degrees in one hour. At the fifth vet check, "rump rugs" are thrown across the sweaty, rapidly chilling horses. Salts and nutrients drain out in that sweat. Volunteer crews hold what look like professional caulking guns to the horses` gums, squeezing electrolytes down their throats.

      Dumas grins as he takes off, chasing Hoeft. "Life is opportunity," he says. "Always be in a position to win." All day, he has maintained a steady 8-mph pace, keeping Hoeft in his sights so he can pounce out of the dark and finish first "with plenty of horse left."

      Ahead. Hoeft sings softly to Denny. A few miles out of the last vet check, he had heard the liquid shift in the horse`s stomach, saw him get his second wind. Elated, he hopped back on.

      "Just a little bit more to go, nothing to this," he croons now. "And by the way, where do you think that old Crockett is?" Denny`s ears prick up.

      Hoeft loves this animal. Donated by breeders to a vet school, Denny spent five years as an oversized lab rat before Hoeft bought him from a trainer via the Internet. He paid $3,500, saved up from working "7-10s" — seven-day weeks, 10 hours a day.

      Hoeft nurtured the skinny weakling through worms, diet trouble and a shoe injury that took months to heal. Slowly, he built up his tendons, heart and bone mass, doing sprints up and down the nearby hills beside him. The last two months, Hoeft has had to leave training to his sister-in-law. Work has been too busy. He`s paying the price today; his legs are killing him.

      A harvest full moon rises like a giant headlight, filtering down through junipers. Hoeft and Denny float across the silvery flats, chasing their own shadow in the gorgeous light. At every turn, the rider peeks back.

      The finish line

      Near the race`s end, Dumas hears the whine of horseflesh hitting metal wire. A woman in the lightweight division has ridden into a closed cattle gate. She flies "top over teakettle." Her horse leaps the fence after her, and stands trembling, a bloody gash across his chest.

      At the finish line, a knot of people wrapped in horse blankets strains to see down the dark, dusty road.

      Ragged cheers erupt. It`s Hoeft and Denny.

      "He got his second wind!" the winner shouts, marveling at the animal beneath him. Minutes later, Dumas follows, second in the heavyweight division.

      Grabbing a bourbon, he plunges immediately into the storytelling. "Going 100 miles in a saddle burns all the impurities out of you," he says. "I kept thinking I would reel him in, but I didn`t. My hat`s off to him."

      For the next several hours, riders arrive — 23 out of the 36 who started. No horse appears to have suffered serious injury, although the 15-year-old`s winces when its back is examined by a vet. The riders are wired, talking loudly, pumped full of endorphins. The horses can`t sleep either. They eat anything they can get their lips on, doze, then jerk awake. They will be watched through the night, walked every few hours, fussed over as if they`re women who have just given birth.

      Ask endurance riders why they do it, and they belly laugh.

      "It`s either sit home at night and beat myself with chains, or do this."

      "It`s my obsession."

      "Ask a psychologist."

      "For 100 miles, you go places no car will ever go."

      "The outside of a horse is good for the inside of the man. Some poet said that."

      The next morning, horses are trotted out for "Best Conditioned," the highest honor in endurance events and a sign that so far, anyway, the humans are still reining in cutthroat instincts that take advantage of horses` big hearts. The award, given for the horse in the top 10 that appears most fit after an endurance ride, goes to a rider from Temecula who finished sixth overall.

      Hoeft misses the ceremony. At 5 a.m., he is back on the job, pouring 45 yards of concrete.

      "You`re talking to the national champion now," he tells everyone he sees.

      "What do you mean?" they ask

      "Endurance riding," he replies. They have no idea.
      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 13:26:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.227 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-super9d…
      THE STATE



      No End in Sight for Store Strike
      A resolution this year seems unlikely after talks break off. The union plots strategy while grocers tout their `outstanding` offer.
      By Nancy Cleeland
      Times Staff Writer

      December 9, 2003

      Prospects for resolving the supermarket strike by year-end appeared increasingly remote Monday after talks on a new contract broke off without significant movement on the key issues of health-care insurance and a proposed lower wage scale for new hires.

      Frustrated by the stalemate, United Food and Commercial Workers Union President Doug Dority said he had summoned leaders of union locals from around the country to Southern California to help plot strategy.

      The supermarkets said they had made a new contract offer that would provide an "outstanding wage and benefit" package, but the union dismissed it as inadequate.

      Peter J. Hurtgen, the normally circumspect director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, referred to the negotiations that ended late Sunday as "difficult." He said he would not call the parties back until he determined "that it might be fruitful to resume face-to-face discussions."

      The talks` derailment was a blow to striking and locked-out UFCW members who are moving into their third month without regular paychecks. Many had hoped that a recent sympathy strike by Teamsters drivers and warehouse workers, combined with the strike-related financial losses reported by Albertsons Inc. last week, would force the three supermarket chains to reconsider hard-line positions.

      "It was kind of heartbreaking," said Gail Holguin, 45, a strike captain at a Vons in Pacific Palisades. "We figure we`re out past Christmas now … there is no end in sight."

      In a statement Monday, Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons touted their revised offer, made to the UFCW last week.

      The new offer does address several union concerns, promising to beef up a reserve to keep an employee health-care plan afloat, for example, and withdrawing a requirement that workers take an unpaid two-hour lunch during slow periods. But the offer no longer includes a 30-cent raise in the contract`s third year, a raise that was included in a proposed pact overwhelmingly rejected by union members two months ago. And, the UFCW complained, the new offer would not maintain "affordable health care for working families."

      The three chains continue to demand that there be a cap on their contributions to the health plan, which would force the union to pass on increases in medical costs to members by raising deductibles or reducing services.

      The companies also want a substantially lower wage and benefit package for new hires. For example, under management`s proposal, health care for new employees would cost the companies about one-third of what they would pay for current employees.

      The UFCW launched its strike against Safeway Inc.-owned Vons stores in Southern and Central California on Oct. 11. Ralphs and Albertsons locked out their union workers the next day. In all, about 70,000 workers are affected.

      With the lines drawn and no immediate resolution in sight, the labor dispute is taking on a larger national significance, said Nelson Lichtenstein, a history professor at UC Santa Barbara.

      "Some strikes begin to transcend themselves and this is one of them," he said. "It is becoming a politicized event which people need to take a stand on, one way or another."

      At stake is the notion of employer-paid health benefits, he said, and even more broadly, the power of unions in the emerging service economy. A perceived win for the union could force other employers to think twice before making significant benefit cuts; a loss could set off a wave of concession bargaining.

      "The national labor movement certainly sees this as a decisive event which will set the course for social policy in the U.S. for many years to come," Lichtenstein said.

      The grocery chains have said they have no choice but to pare the relatively high wages and benefits enjoyed by their workers in order to compete with nonunion Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is moving into the grocery business in California. Union supermarket workers now earn on average of $13 an hour, and many veteran clerks make nearly $18 an hour. Even part-time workers receive fully paid family health insurance.

      In their statement Monday, the companies said their latest offer "will continue to provide the current workforce with outstanding wage and benefit programs while better positioning the companies to face the enormous challenges of the changing competitive landscape."

      Vons spokeswoman Sandra Calderon would not respond to questions about the latest offer. Asked about the prospects for a resolution, she said, "I can`t comment or speculate on how long it`s going to continue."

      Representatives of Ralphs and Albertsons did not return phone calls Monday.

      Rick Icaza, president of UFCW Local 770 in Los Angeles, said the union had offered to accept some cuts, in the form of higher co-pays for doctor visits or prescription medicine, for example. He said the union also had proposed a longer wage progression for new hires, so that it would take a worker several years longer to reach top scale.

      "In my whole history with the union, we`ve never come in and proposed cuts in medical care, and this time, we made a significant proposal and it wasn`t good enough for them," Icaza said. "It`s apparent now this is going to go through Christmas."

      The UFCW is now calling hundreds of union local presidents and other officials from across the country to Los Angeles next Tuesday for a summit on the strike.

      "We want to throw the question out there, How do we win this strike? Because we can`t lose it," said Greg Denier, communications director for the national union.

      *


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Times staff writer Ronald D. White contributed to this report.



      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 13:31:11
      Beitrag Nr. 10.228 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer9…
      COMMENTARY



      GOP Has Got to Get Off the Dime
      Robert Scheer

      December 9, 2003

      You`ve got to love Nancy Reagan for the steadfast way she guards her husband`s legacy against opportunistic political poachers. The most recent example being her quick rejection of the boneheaded partisan move by nearly 90 congressional Republicans who signed on to a bill to have Reagan replace Franklin Delano Roosevelt`s profile on the dime. "I do not support this proposal, and I`m certain Ronnie would not," was her no-nonsense reply.

      Of course her husband would agree. His father had a job in Roosevelt`s New Deal that saved their family and millions of others from starvation during the Great Depression. That`s why Ronald Reagan voted for Roosevelt and became an active Democrat. Even after his conservative transformation, Reagan often insisted that he never left the party of Roosevelt but rather the Democratic Party changed over the years and left him.

      Nancy Reagan, the daughter of a successful physician, did not suffer through the Depression years, but this is a classy lady not given to fads. "When our country chooses to honor a great president such as Franklin Roosevelt by placing his likeness on our currency, it would be wrong to remove him and replace him with another," she said. "It is my hope that the proposed legislation will be withdrawn."

      What made this right-wing political ploy particularly objectionable was that the dime commemoration, a year after FDR`s death, was in honor of the March of Dimes` support of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, which Roosevelt founded in 1938. In the foundation`s first year, more than 2.6 million dimes were mailed to the White House in what was to become one of the great private charity efforts. It led to the eventual eradication of polio, which Roosevelt had.

      Roosevelt picked the dime as the fund-raising device because he felt that everyone could afford to make at least that contribution. Like the AIDS epidemic, polio was a pervasive plague throughout the world. In a message now echoed in AIDS fund-raising, Roosevelt viewed the fight against polio as a means of cultivating a greater awareness of our common humanity.

      A Kansas City Star article reviewing this history quoted Roosevelt on the annual dances held on his birthday to raise funds and of the dime collections: "In sending a dime … and in dancing that others may walk, we the people are striking a powerful blow in defense of American freedom and human decency. For the answer to class hatred, race hatred [and] … religious hatred is the free expression of our love of our fellow man."

      Not only did Roosevelt lead us against Hitler`s fascism, he also invigorated the populace, during the Depression and war, with the notion that responsibility for the commonweal be met by both the private and public sectors.

      It is sad that Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), who initiated the campaign to get FDR off the dime, should dismiss him as simply a "liberal icon" who must be replaced with Reagan, "the conservative icon." That diminishes both presidents, who had leadership styles more complex than Souder`s simplistic labels can hold. Fortunately, there are still some Republicans who can think outside of that tiny partisan box. An example is Secretary of State Colin Powell, who in his autobiography makes clear that he endorses much of what has come to be known as the Reagan Revolution. But Powell cautions:

      "Because I express these beliefs, some people have rushed to hang a Republican label around my neck. I am not, however, knee-jerk anti-government. I was born a New Deal, Depression-era kid. Franklin Roosevelt was a hero in my boyhood home. Government helped my parents by providing cheap public subway systems so that they could get to work, and public schools for their children, and protection under the law to make sure that labor was not exploited …. I received a free college education because New York taxed its citizens to make this investment in the sons and daughters of immigrants and the working class."

      I was in Powell`s class at the City College of New York and can attest that Roosevelt was a hero in all our classmates` homes, just as he had been in Reagan`s. That shared memory of Roosevelt`s immense contribution to this nation ought to be reason enough for not trying to steal FDR`s dime.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 13:49:05
      Beitrag Nr. 10.229 ()
      Heute Nacht ist die Wahl.

      Greens aren`t so different from the pols they seek to replace
      Party makes advances but faces challenges of holding true to its ideals while winning
      Jonathan Curiel, Chronicle Staff Writer
      Sunday, December 7, 2003
      ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ


      URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/07/ING7N3F9PS1.DTL


      Considering it`s still in its infancy as a political force, the Green Party has made remarkable strides and has become a kind of haven for disaffected Democrats -- even as it continues to be stereotyped as the party that derailed Al Gore`s presidency.

      Beyond the hyperbole, both pro and con, is a momentum that is illustrated by the more than 200 Greens who now hold elected office around the United States. What`s attracting more and more disenchanted voters is a platform that calls for social justice, ecological imperatives, demilitarization, gender equity, and an economic system that`s community-based.

      The dilemma for the Green Party, as for any political party, is whether to stick to its ideals and risk being relegated to the margins or to play politics and succeed.

      Matt Gonzalez`s candidacy for mayor of San Francisco didn`t happen in a vacuum. Three years after he became a Green and a supervisor, he contemplated a mayoral run, recognizing that the political zeitgeist had changed. In a liberal city like San Francisco, he reasoned, a Green candidacy could overcome perceptions that the party is too extreme, too anti-business and too out of touch with the day-to-day realities of running a major American city.

      How might Gonzalez govern? It`s not far-fetched to think that a Green mayor in San Francisco might turn out to be, if not a wheeler-dealer, at least a tough political player. There are reams of evidence that, once in power, Greens play politics with fairness and (yes) a spirit of compromise.

      In Santa Monica, Michael Feinstein, a young Green Party city councilman who was once a Democrat, helped negotiate a land deal with the Rand Corp. that was viewed as a win-win for both the corporation and the city. Under terms of the 1999 transaction, Santa Monica bought 11 acres of Rand land for $53 million -- money the conservative think tank used to finance construction of its new headquarters. Feinstein, who served as mayor from 2000-2002, helped persuade Rand to make its new building a model of environmental efficiency when it`s completed next fall. Meanwhile, the city earmarked the 11 acres for affordable housing and open space.

      In Topsham, Maine, national Green Party co-founder John Rensenbrink helped persuade a major land developer to keep intact hundreds of acres of nature trails, woods and waterways. Developer John Wasileski said the change turned out to be good business for his 600-acre resort/golf course project.

      As Rensenbrink and other environmentalists had correctly theorized, people interested in buying homes at the resort prefer access to green space - - a preference Wasileski hadn`t fully appreciated until he met with the activists and commissioned a study. (Among the other changes Wasileski agreed to was a nine-hole rather than an 18-hole golf course that he`ll maintain in environmentally friendly ways.)

      In the town of Sonoma, the Green Party`s Larry Barnett, a longtime city councilman and former mayor, has shepherded measures supporting small businesses over chain-store development. Barnett can relate to the needs of small business because he`s a small-business owner himself. Barnett operates the Thistle Dew Inn, a bed and breakfast in Sonoma, and a Web site development firm called Epiphanet Inc.

      Anti-business? Greens say they can`t afford to be. Strictly from a political standpoint, they say, it makes no sense to be completely adversarial with those they`re trying to influence. In this way, the Greens are no different from Democrats, Republicans and other parties that -- once in office -- work at consensus.

      That doesn`t mean selling out, they say, nor does it mean extending Mephistophelean favors to lobbyists and corporations used to behind-the-scenes handshakes. What it means is molding legislation that demands something of everyone -- even if Greens have to be politically stubborn to accomplish that.

      "Ideology is important, but you`re also trying to be very practical about trying to make a community work," says Santa Monica`s Feinstein, 45, who -- in the late 1980s -- once protested against Rand`s real estate expansion. "I tried to find common ground (as mayor). In that sense, businesses don`t have that much to fear from Greens."

      Says Maine`s Rensenbrink: "We`re definitely pro-business when the business takes a direct interest in the community. That`s a decisive consideration for us. That`s the difference between our ability (in Topsham) to form this arrangement with businessman John Wasileski versus our strong fight against Wal-Mart, which is the kind of business that doesn`t give a damn about the community, in our estimation."

      It`s the issue of minimum wage that for conservatives often leads to impressions of the Green Party as made up of intractable ideologues.

      Gonzalez sponsored Proposition L, the initiative passed by San Francisco voters last month that increases the minimum wage in San Francisco from $6.75 an hour to $8.50. He has promised that, as mayor, he will enforce the measure and establish what he calls a Low-wage Worker Commission, whose members would have a say in city policy.

      When Feinstein was mayor of Santa Monica, he sponsored a minimum-wage bill that would have required certain businesses to pay workers $10.50 an hour (or $12.25 if the employer didn`t provide health benefits). The measure was narrowly defeated after business owners there (as they did in San Francisco) complained it would squeeze their profits and force them to freeze hiring.

      Feinstein and other Greens say the minimum-wage issue is a good example of an issue that`s easily distorted by bluster. They say their measures are supported by solid research, like that of Robert Pollin, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He`s measured the effect of minimum-wage laws and found that businesses can typically cover their increased costs by raising prices only 1 to 2 percent. (As an example, a restaurant might raise the price of pasta primavera from $16 to $16.25.) It`s a small cost to provide working families with enough money to live on.

      What`s more, say the Greens, the minimum-wage issue is typical of an issue that would have been a big one for Democrats 20 years ago but not now. It`s no coincidence, they say, that Gonzalez, Feinstein and Barnett are all former Democrats. Same with Rensenbrink.

      "I used to be a Democrat," says Joel Kovel, a professor of social studies at Bard College and now an active Green Party member who ran against Ralph Nader for the party`s 2000 presidential nomination. Kovel, who met Gonzalez in June during a Bay Area speaking engagement, says, "The last Democrat I voted for was Michael Dukakis. I refused to vote for Clinton because of the way he handled issues like the death penalty.

      "For years, I had been holding my nose and voting for Democrats. With Clinton, you saw that there was a structural change in the Democratic Party. Clinton was, functionally speaking, a Democrat who wasn`t interested at all in posing an alternative to corporate rule. I admired Clinton -- he was a brilliant politician but I didn`t want to be part of that."

      After Matt Gonzalez also decided he could no longer countenance the Democratic Party, he wrote in an opinion piece, "I am not going to vote for candidates who support the death penalty or oppose gay marriage. I`m not going to vote for candidates who oppose campaign-finance reform or value the corporation over the individual. Nor will I give the local machine party any legitimacy by remaining a part of it."

      As mayor, Gonzalez has pledged to do things that fit into a Green Party platform, such as making Muni free for students, seniors and the disabled, and

      -- with an eye on the health of San Francisco Bay -- preventing San Francisco International Airport from building new runways. But Gonzalez should be mindful of the lessons of Greens from the past.

      Audie Bock, the Assembly member from Piedmont who was the first Green in the nation to win a state legislative office, found herself sandwiched by political demands when she went to Sacramento in 1999. She flip-flopped on issues, then decided to return to the Democratic Party and -- annoying Greens further -- accepted corporate donations for her (failed) re-election campaign.

      Greens say that she was never really a Green, but that her election still reflected the political will that sustained Nader`s presidential campaign, sustained Peter Camejo`s run for governor this year (he placed fourth with 218, 000 votes) and sustained Maine legislator John Eder, who last year became the second Green to win state office.

      Skeptics say the Greens are simply tapping into the anti-establishment sentiment that also elected (thanks to many voting Democrats) Arnold Schwarzenegger. Indeed, if more voters digested the Green Party platform, they might complain that the party is an amorphous caricature of 1960s idealism.

      Among the tenets is one that calls for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, another that calls for "the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting," and another that states, "We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law."

      Compared with the two major parties, the Greens are hampered by a lack of financial resources and national organizing power. What`s more, the Greens are badly divided about whether Nader should run for the White House next year, with some party members openly condemning the idea. And what`s to make of the Green Party sending a letter to Jesse Ventura encouraging him to seek their 2004 nomination?

      Still, Rensenbrink believes this is the Greens` time. "What we have is a gradual increase in Green Party visibility and respectability," says Rensenbrink, an emeritus professor of government at Bowdoin College. "We are a fresh and different kind of voice that stands for solid American values. The values Greens have -- good environment, conservation, good health, good business -- go back to Jefferson."

      So when Gonzalez`s opponent, Democrat Gavin Newsom, calls the Green Party extreme and says that San Francisco needs Newsom as mayor, "not someone (who`d govern) from an ideological perch," it`s a reflection, the Greens say, of how far the Democratic Party has departed from its New Deal roots, not how out of step the Green Party is.

      Based on the Greens` recent history, voters shouldn`t worry so much about extremist edicts from Gonzalez. The more likely pitfall is that a Gonzalez administration would get caught up in politicking, rendering the Greens as just another party.

      E-mail Jonathan Curiel at jcuriel@sfchronicle.com.

      ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 14:52:41
      Beitrag Nr. 10.230 ()
      Die ersten Vorwahlen für die Dems finden glaube ich im Januar staat.

      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 15:17:05
      Beitrag Nr. 10.231 ()
      Fair and Balanced™ Cartoons
      Cartoon Archive
      103 New Cartoons Today, jetzt doch noch 103 frische Cartoons:

      http://www.flu-ent.com/graveyard/20031209__103toons.htm



      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 20:22:29
      Beitrag Nr. 10.232 ()
      Monday, December 8th, 2003
      Turkeys on the Moon... from Michael Moore


      Monday, December 8th, 2003

      Dear Mr. Bush,

      Well, it`s going on two weeks now since your surprise visit to one of the two countries you now run and, I have to say, I`m still warmed by the gesture. Man, take me along next time! I understand only 13 members of the media went with you -- and it turns out only ONE of them was an actual reporter for a newspaper. But you did take along FIVE photographers (hey, I get it, screw the words, it`s all about the pictures!), a couple wire service guys, and a crew from the Fox News Channel (fair and balanced!).

      Then, I read in the paper this weekend that that big turkey you were holding in Baghdad (you know, the picture that`s supposed to replace the now-embarrassing footage of you on that aircraft carrier with the sign "Mission Accomplished") -- well, it turns out that big, beautiful turkey of yours was never eaten by the troops! It wasn`t eaten by anyone! That`s because it wasn`t real! It was a STUNT turkey, brought in to look like a real edible turkey for all those great camera angles.

      Now I know some people will say you are into props (like the one in the lower extremities of your flyboy suit), but hey, I get it, this is theater! So what if it was a bogus turkey? The whole trip was bogus, all staged to look like "news." The fake honey glaze on that bird wasn`t much different from the fake honey glaze that covers this war. And the fake stuffing in the fake bird was just the right symbol for our country during these times. America loves fake honey glaze, it loves to be stuffed, and, dammit, YOU knew that -- that`s what makes you so in touch with the people you lead!

      It was also a good idea that you made the "press" on that trip to Baghdad pull the shades down on the plane. No one in the media entourage complained. They like the shades pulled and they like to be kept in the dark. It`s more fun that way. And, when you made them take the batteries out of their cell phones so they wouldn`t be able to call anyone, and they dutifully complied -- that was genius! I think if you had told them to put their hands on their heads and touch their noses with their tongues, they would have done that, too! That`s how much they like you. You could have played "Simon Says" the whole way over there. It wouldn`t have been that much different from "Karl Says," a game they LOVE to play every day with Mr. Rove.

      Well, if you`re planning any surprises for Christmas, don`t forget to include me. When I heard last week that you wanted to send a man back to the moon, I thought, get the fake goose ready -- that`s where ol` George is going for the holidays! I don`t blame you, what with nearly 3 million jobs disappeared, and a $281 billion surplus disappeared, and the USA stuck in a war that will never end -- who wouldn`t want to go to the moon! This time, take ALL the media with you! Embed them on the moon! They`ll love it there! It looks just like Crawford! You can golf on the moon, too. You`ll have so much fun up there, you might not want to come back. Better take Cheney with you, too. Pretend it`s a medical experiment or something. "That`s one small step for man, one giant leap for every American who`s sick and tired of all this crap."

      Yours,

      Michael Moore

      mmflint@aol.com

      www.michaelmoore.com
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 20:27:06
      Beitrag Nr. 10.233 ()
      Tuesday, December 09, 2003
      War News for December 9, 2003

      Jede Meldung ein Link:
      http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

      Bring ‘em on: Forty-one US soldiers wounded in suicide bombing near Tal Afar.

      Bring ‘em on: Three Iraqis killed in rocket attack on Sunni mosque in Baghdad.

      Bring ‘em on: Two US soldiers wounded in suicide bombing near Baquba.

      Bring `em on: Witnesses report US helicopter shot down near Fallujah.

      Three US soldiers killed in vehicle accident near Balad.

      UN Security Council presses US and UK to release suppressed portions of ISG report on weapons of mass destruction.

      More on sabotage and fuel shortages.

      Japan agrees to send 600 non-combat troops to Iraq.

      Pentagon delays Iraq reconstruction contract tenders. "Asked about these `high-level` decisions, the defence official said lawyers were trying to ensure the different government departments issued tenders that were consistent. However, one military source said some officials were at odds over whether companies from countries that opposed the US-led war with Iraq should be excluded from such deals." Which is exactly why the international community is reluctant to provide financial support for Iraqi reconstruction.

      Protests in Karbala over fuel shortages. Go to the end of this story.

      Casualty Reports

      Local story: California soldier killed in Iraq.

      Local story: Ohio soldier wounded in Iraq.

      Local story: Texas soldier killed in Iraq.

      Local story: Michigan soldier killed in Iraq.






      # posted by yankeedoodle : 3:36 AM
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 20:43:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.234 ()
      Operation Iraqi Freedom
      Dec. 4, 2003
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/04/60minutes/main5868…

      When the U.S. invasion came last spring with promises of democracy and self-rule, people in Karbala were among the first to try and take charge of their own affairs.

      Religious and community leaders got together and selected a city council to represent them, and a security force to protect them. They had assumed that their experiment in democracy would be applauded by the American military.

      It was not. U.S. troops disarmed the protection force, arrested popular city councilmen and put back into power some of the same people who had served Saddam.

      It has left people here angry and frustrated, including Dr. Hussein Shahristani, one of the most respected exiles to return after the war.

      The last time 60 Minutes spoke with him was in London just before the war. He was one of Iraq`s leading dissidents, a top nuclear scientist who had refused to help Saddam to build a nuclear bomb. At that time, he told Correspondent Steve Kroft about his 11 years in solitary confinement and torture at the hands of Saddam`s henchmen.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      ”They used high voltage probes on the sensitive part of the body,” says Shahristani, who recalled seeing and hearing other people being tortured as well. “The worst part of it was hearing these young children screaming.”

      Shahristani escaped in 1991 and devoted a decade to helping Iraqi refugees. And when U.S. forces rolled into southern Iraq, he followed, setting up an aid organization in Karbala, distributing everything from shoes to wheelbarrows, and supplying milk and eggs to 7,000 families.

      When Shahristani talked to 60 Minutes in London earlier this year, he said his main concern was that the U.S. would rush into a war without “doing its homework properly.”

      “They have conducted the war itself very well,” he says. “But they were not prepared for what the Iraqi people expected of them after the war.”

      What they expected, Shahristani says, is just what the U.S. had promised -- self-rule and swift justice for members of Saddam`s Ba`ath Party, who had enslaved them for more than 20 years.

      “The expectations were that the Baathists would be immediately arrested and put on trial for their crimes against humanity, for their crimes against the Iraqi people. Now this hasn`t happened. And people were alarmed when the Ba`athists were actually reinstated back into government,” says Shahristani, citing that a lot of ex-Baathists still hold positions in the police department.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      When the U.S. Marines pulled into town, their American commander decided to install as police chief Gen. Abbas Fathil Abud, a high-ranking member of the Baath Party, who had served Saddam for 24 years.

      When 60 Minutes arrived at his office, he was closeted with U.S. military officers and protected by American troops.

      “There is a lot of cooperation between us and the American military police,” says Gen. Abud.

      Even though Ambassador Paul Bremer is on record saying that no high-ranking members of Saddam`s old Baath Party will hold power in Iraq, in Karbala, the U.S. government is cooperating with Gen. Abud and has put him in charge of a well-armed force – even though he is a Baathist.

      “The decision is Mr. Bremer`s. He`s the decision maker and he can make an exception,” says Abud.

      Neither Ambassador Bremer nor the Marines would discuss any aspect of their role in Karbala.

      One of the arguments the U.S. government has made is that they need trained people to help them restore order in the country. And the trained people are those who are former Baath Party members.

      “Some of these people, what they are really actually doing are recruiting the newly organized Baathist apparatus back into the force,” says Shahristani, who adds that the people are extremely concerned about this. “People feel vulnerable.”

      They feel vulnerable because some of the same people who jailed, tortured and informed on them are once again in a position of authority: carrying weapons, communications equipment and driving official vehicles.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      One of the reasons Karbala has been relatively peaceful since the invasion is that Shi`ite religious figures have ordered people to be calm and cooperate with U.S. authorities.

      But Sheik Abdul Mehdi Salami - the top Muslim cleric in Karbala - is losing patience.

      “They all have to be taken out of management. We don`t need them. The Americans issued exemptions to some Baathists. This is not right,” says Abdul Mehdi.

      Is it possible that the Americans just were ignorant when they first came in? That they didn`t know who to talk to?

      “They might not have known at the beginning. But later on the picture became clearer,” says Abdul Mehdi.

      “The Baath Party is reorganizing itself. They are getting financial support from Saddam`s inner circles who are still loose, and they are holding meetings to organize their activities,” adds Shahristani.

      Not only have the Americans installed Saddam loyalists in the police department, they have tried to arrest two people selected by Karbala`s leaders to serve on the city council.

      Akram al Zubaidi was appointed to be the city`s spokesman and he had spent 11 years in Saddam`s prisons. Yet when he complained to the Americans about the new police chief and the way they were trying to run the city, U.S. forces tried to arrest him. He managed to escape.

      He’s now a fugitive on the run. He says that more than 15 American soldiers raided his house in the middle of the night. He also says that his crime was doing the job the leaders of Karbala had asked him to do.

      “My crime is that I was 100 percent honest,” says al Zubaidi, who claims this made him a troublemaker. “That`s the way they saw me. I was telling them everything. And I was very honest with them and I thought that was democracy. And then, I realized democracy is only allowed in your country and not in ours.”

      Why is this happening?

      “The U.S. officers in charge of the city have never explained to the people why they`ve arrested these people,” says Shahristani. “They only told the city council that they have good reasons for these arrests, which they are not going to share with them.”

      Nor would U.S. authorities share them with 60 Minutes.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Najeeb al Shami was the city councilor in charge of security in Karbala before the Marines took over and installed a Saddam loyalist in his place. Al Shami, who has a heart condition, was arrested by the Americans as an enemy prisoner of war, and cleared after it was determined that there was no evidence that he had committed belligerent acts against coalition forces.

      His son, Ahmed, says al Shami was rearrested a few days later and taken to Abu Ghrieb Prison. When Ahmed went to the prison with a lawyer, he says they were turned away: “It is forbidden for any lawyers, humanitarian organizations, or any member of his family to visit him.”

      What is he charged with?

      “We don`t know. Abu Ghrieb is a very big complex,” says Shahristani.

      60 Minutes went off to Abu Ghreib with Shahristani to see if we could get some information. Shahristani had once spent nearly 4,000 days in solitary confinement under Saddam in Abu Ghrieb. As it turns out, he was lucky. The cells just outside the execution chamber still bear the names of those who got the gallows.

      “Most people just left their names. This guy is Jawad al-Abadi. It`s a big family. And this guy is Jawadi Malek,” says Shahristani. “Everybody was executed.”

      “When the execution was complete from, with the hanging, the ropes were removed from the individual,” says Brigadier Gen. Janis Karpinski, commander of the 800th MP Brigade. He’s now the American officer in charge of Abu Ghreib. “We`ve been told that they were gassed until the execution was complete.”

      Gen. Karpinski assured 60 Minutes that Abu Ghreib is a much different place now than it was when Saddam was running it. Prisoners were well fed and taken care of. Most of them, she said, were common criminals, and that everyone here was allowed visits with their families and lawyers. A few, she said, were being held for "crimes against the coalition," but no one was being held without charges.

      When asked about al Shami, who was originally classified as an enemy prisoner of war, Karpinski said she didn’t recognize the name. “We have several thousand prisoners here,” she says.

      She also said that it was unlikely that his family and lawyers have not been able to get information about al Shami or visit him in Abu Ghreib.

      Is it possible to find out whether he is here?

      “We can, with this information, we can find out what the circumstances are, sure,” says Karpinski.

      But are there people here who are being held without charges? “No. We have prisoners in all of our facilities who, I mean there`s nobody being held for no reason,” says Karpinski. “There`s foundation or, or charges for all of our prisoners.”

      60 Minutes followed Gen. Karpinski to the computer room and waited. She had told us that all prisoners were charged after an initial 72-hour processing period. But Najeeb al Shami had been in Abu Ghreib for more than a month.

      Finally, she was able to find him.

      “We`ve located the individual you were asking about and the process for him, the in-processing portion is not completed yet, and I`ve been asked not to release any additional information because his in-processing is not completed yet,” says Karpinski.

      Obviously, Kroft said, it’s taken a lot longer than 72 hours to process al Shami’s case.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      60 Minutes was then asked to turn off the camera. Gen. Karpinski told us that al Shami was "suspected of crimes against the coalition," and had not yet been charged, and would not necessarily be allowed access to his family and lawyers.

      Later that day, we received written answers from U.S. Central Command to our requests to find out what happened to the city councilor. On the question of family visits, it said: "To date we have not allowed our civilian security internees to receive visitors." And added, "We do not discuss their cases publicly."

      Two months after al Shami was jailed at Abu Ghreib, there are still no charges against him.

      Gen. Karpinski said al Shami had been turned in by another Iraqi. We asked the Karbala police chief, Gen. Abbas, a 24-year veteran of Saddam`s forces, if he had turned in the city councilor.

      “How could it be me,” he said.

      In Karbala, hopes for war crimes trials and representative democracy are fading, and it is not clear whether Iraqis will ever be able to vote in an American-style election.

      If U.S. forces impose a government rather than allowing Iraqis to elect one, Dr. Shahristani says he fears the worst: “If that process doesn`t happen, God only knows what will be the consequences of such a move.”



      © MMIII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 20:50:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.235 ()
      A Reagan-Bush Analogy That Works



      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Bedtime For Bonzo

      Bonus Photo
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 20:52:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.236 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 23:11:33
      !
      Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an feedback@wallstreet-online.de
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 23:17:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.238 ()
      Secrets And Spies


      Robert Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Virginia, who specializes in politics and national security issues.


      Calling all spooks and spies. If you want to help Congress get to the bottom of the scandal over Iraq intelligence, now’s your chance. Later this week, a key member of Congress will issue an all-points call for intelligence analysts to blow the whistle on President Bush, Vice President Cheney and others in the Bush administration who may have distorted, exaggerated, manipulated or lied about intelligence on Iraq in the run up to war.

      By creating a “tip line” on his official Web site, Democratic congressman from California Henry Waxman is encouraging current and former U.S. national security officials to come forward and disclose how the administration played with intelligence on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda. A ranking member on the House Committee on Government Reform, Rep. Waxman is making it possible for officials to go on the record or remain anonymous, according to one of his aides.

      The announcement that Rep. Waxman intends to ask whistleblowers from the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies to come forward will be included in a letter to Rep. Tom Davis, the Virginia Republican who chairs the committee. The letter will also ask Davis to begin an official investigation of how the name of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was leaked to the media. Wilson, a retired diplomat, helped quash forged documents that Iraq sought to buy uranium for bomb-making in Niger, and subsequently Plame, who was an undercover CIA officer, was outed by anonymous U.S. officials.

      Waxman’s effort, which is sure to be controversial, is a sign that the simmering scandal about U.S. intelligence on Iraq won’t go away during 2004. The Senate intel committee is locked in a partisan dispute over Republican efforts to stonewall an inquiry into the Bush administration’s use of intelligence to justify war, including the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) and its subordinate intelligence unit. Yet there are signs that more and more disgruntled officials, including CIA officers, may come forward in the weeks to come. In The American Conservative, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who has already talked to some reporters, has begun penning a breathtaking account of her year in the Pentagon’s Office of Near East and South Asia affairs, which was headed by Capt. William Luti, a pro-war neocon. The OSP, headed by Abe Shulsky, another neocon, fell under Luti’s shop.

      Meanwhile, Newsweek reports that Luti was a recipient of intelligence passed on to him by the Washington office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the former Iraqi exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, the darling of the neocons and their candidate to be Iraq’s next prime minister. The INC—whose intelligence was widely considered bogus and unreliable by the U.S. intelligence community—served as a conduit for hair-raising but unproven (and later disproven) reports about Iraq WMD and terrorism links. Now, Newsweek has obtained a memo from the INC’s Washington rep that claims the INC fed its intelligence to Luti and directly to Vice President Cheney’s office.

      Heaping more doubts on the integrity of the fact-finding process is new information from Israel suggesting that Israeli intelligence officials, too, joined U.S. and British intelligence in exaggerating the threat of Iraqi WMD. A report by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University last month called for an official investigation of how Israeli intelligence assessed the Iraqi threat. According to informed U.S. sources, a secret intelligence team was set up in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s office before the war in Iraq to generate data adding yet more justifications for war—intelligence that Sharon’s office then shared, in English, with Luti’s OSP—even though the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, was said to be much more cautious and restrained about the threat to Israel from Iraq.


      Click here to subscribe to our free e-mail dispatch and get the latest on what`s new at TomPaine.com before everyone else! You can unsubscribe at any time and we will never distribute your information to any other entity.





      Published: Dec 08 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.12.03 23:23:14
      Beitrag Nr. 10.239 ()
      For Immediate Release: Contact: Alistair Hodgett
      December 2, 2003 (202) 544-0200 x 302

      Amnesty International Report: US Exports $20 million of Shackles,
      Electro-Shock Technology
      Expanding Global Trade Supplies States US Condemned for Torture

      (Washington, DC) – A new Amnesty International report charges that in 2002, the Bush Administration violated the spirit of its own export policy and approved the sale of equipment implicated in torture to Yemen, Jordan, Morocco and Thailand, despite the countries` documented use of such weapons to punish, mistreat and inflict torture on prisoners. The US is also alleged to have handed suspects in the `war on terror` to the same countries.

      The total value of US exports of electro-shock weapons was $14.7 million in 2002 and exports of restraints totaled $4.4 million in the same period. The Commerce and State Departments approved these sales, permitting 45 countries to purchase electro-shock technology, including 19 that had been cited for the use of such weapons to inflict torture since 1990.

      The report – The Pain Merchants – also reveals that the US approved the 2002 export to Saudi Arabia of nine tons of Smith & Wesson leg-irons. Former prisoners in Saudi Arabia have stated that their restraints were stamped with the name of Smith & Wesson. In a 2000 Amnesty International report, Phil Lomax, a UK national who was held for 17 days in 1999, recounted how shackles used in Malaz prison in Riyadh, were made in the US: "When[ever] we were taken out of the cell we were shackled and handcuffed. The shackles were very painful. They were made of steel... like a handcuff ring. The handcuffs were made in the USA."

      "Although torture is endemic in Saudi Arabia, Smith and Wesson had no qualms about exporting approximately 10,000 leg-irons to Riyadh, and apparently sharing this lack of concern, the Bush Administration approved the sale," said Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA (AIUSA). "For decades, human rights groups and the US State Department have documented Saudi Arabia`s cruel use of leg-irons and shackles to inflict torture and force confessions. With this shameful shipment, we can expect the torture of religious minorities and peaceful protestors to continue for years to come."

      Amnesty International acknowledges that the US government made several positive changes in recent years, including creating an excellent export policy predicated on human rights standards that created well-defined export categories and required export licenses for electro-shock equipment to all countries except Canada. However, Amnesty International is alarmed that the policy is being improperly implemented. In particular, the policy has not prevented the approval of exports even when there is a significant risk of their use for torture in the destination country.

      In 2001, the US approved three sales of electro-shock weapons to Turkey, despite continued widespread use of such technology to torture. In a 2002 case, a 17-year-old schoolgirl who had been detained for distributing leaflets calling for Kurdish education was stripped, threatened with rape and tortured with electric shocks to her feet, legs and stomach.

      "The US needs to completely close the loopholes that have allowed the re-supply of this technology to countries that torture," said Maureen Greenwood, AIUSA`s Advocacy Director for Europe. "Representatives Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Henry Hyde (R-IL) have worked to codify in law greater oversight of torture equipment exports, and are currently working on legislation that places restrictions on crime control exports to foreign governments that have a record of repeatedly engaging in acts of torture. The administration should give this legislation its unqualified support."

      Worldwide, there are now at least 856 companies in 47 countries involved in the manufacture or marketing of electro-shock technology, restraints and chemical irritants that are prone to be used to torture. A 2001 survey by Amnesty International found more than 80 such firms – 1 in 10 – were in the United States.

      The number of manufacturers of electro-shock technology has more than doubled since 1997, when Amnesty International documented 20 such firms. For the period 1999-2003, Amnesty International found at least 59 manufacturers of electro-shock weapons in 12 countries, including 8 firms in the US. For the same period, Amnesty International found 21 manufacturers of leg cuffs, leg-irons and shackles in 11 countries, of which six were US companies.

      THE PAIN MERCHANTS
      Security equipment and its use in torture and other ill-treatment
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 00:02:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.240 ()
      December 9, 2003
      U.S. Bars Iraq Contracts for Nations That Opposed War
      By DOUGLAS JEHL

      WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 — The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying the step "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

      The directive, which was issued by the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, represents perhaps the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.

      The administration had warned before the war that countries that did not join an American-led coalition would not have a voice in decisions about the rebuilding of Iraq. But the administration had not previously made clear that French, German and Russian companies would be excluded from competing for the lucrative reconstruction contracts, which include the rebuilding of Iraq`s infrastructure and equipping its army.

      Under the guidelines, which were issued on Friday but became public knowledge today, only companies from the United States, Iraq and 61 other countries designated as "coalition partners" will be allowed to bid on the contracts, which are financed by American taxpayers.

      Among the eligible countries are Britain, the closest American ally in Iraq, as well Poland and Italy, which have contributed troops to the American-led security effort. But the list also includes other nations whose support has been less evident, including Turkey, which allowed American aircraft to fly over its territory but barred American forces at the last minute from using its soil as a staging point to invade Iraq from the north in March.

      The directive by Mr. Wolfowitz does not spell out a precise argument for why allowing French, German and Russian companies to join in the competition for the contracts would hurt American security interests. But it suggests that the main motivation is to use the contracts as a reward for countries that participate in the American-led coalition and contribute troops to the American-led security effort.

      "Every effort must be made to expand international cooperation in Iraq," the directive says, noting that the number of troops provided by non-American countries has increased from 14,000 to 23,700 in recent months, while the number of American troops has declined by about 12,000. "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts."

      A Republican congressman who recently returned from Iraq said in a telephone interview today that it was a mistake to exclude particular countries from the rebuilding effort.

      "It strikes me that we should do whatever we can to draw in the French, the Germans, the Russians and others into the process," said the congressman, Christopher Shays of Connecticut. "I would expect that most of the contracts would go to countries who have done the heavy lifting, but I wouldn`t want to see any arbitrary effort to shut anyone out."

      In a report that he issued today along with another congressman, Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia, Mr. Shays said, "The administration should redouble efforts to internationalize the rebuilding of Iraq."

      Bush administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, warned last spring that France and other countries would have to face the "consequences" of their efforts in the United Nations and other forums to block the American invasion of Iraq.

      But until now, the American response has been mostly symbolic, including a notable absence of White House invitations to those countries` leaders to join President Bush for cozy one-on-one sessions at his Texas ranch.

      A spokeswoman for the German Embassy in Washington, Martina Nibbeling-Wiessnig, would say only that "German companies and entrepreneurs are already engaged in Iraq as subcontractors." The French and Russian embassies in Washington did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 00:15:03
      Beitrag Nr. 10.241 ()


      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 00:23:24
      Beitrag Nr. 10.242 ()
      Published on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 by the Miami Herald
      Exporting Capitalism a Fool`s Errand
      by Robert Steinback

      By simultaneously force-feeding democracy and free-market capitalism to Iraq, the Bush administration is reprising a strategy that has repeatedly met with disastrous results throughout the world.

      If the strategy doesn`t fail in Iraq as well, it will be a miracle.

      Capitalism and democracy are the bedrock principles of American prosperity and freedom. It`s easy for us to believe these concepts will work as well elsewhere as they have for us.

      Recent history suggests otherwise. The concurrent introduction of free-market capitalism and democracy typically generates powerful opposing forces that can plunge underdeveloped countries into calamitous turmoil, Yale University professor Amy Chua argues in her compelling book, World on Fire: How exporting free-market democracy breeds ethnic hatred and global instability.

      Chua is no socialist; she believes in democracy, globalization and capitalism. The problem, she said, is that laissez-faire capitalism has no built-in mechanism for distributing the wealth it creates.

      When introduced to underdeveloped societies with competing ethnic communities, the wealth created by free markets tends to concentrate in the hands of a market-dominant ethnic minority group, while the indigenous majority population sees little improvement in its quality of life. This can stir majority resentment and hostility against the rich minority.

      ``There are many versions of free-market democracy, and I think we`ve been exporting the wrong one,`` Chua told me.

      ``There is no Western nation today with anything close to a laissez-faire system. We have progressive taxation, social security, antitrust laws, anti-monopoly laws, and so on.

      ``Yet for the last 20 years, we`ve been urging poor countries around the world to adopt a bare-knuckled brand of capitalism the United States and Europe abandoned long ago -- basically, raw capitalism with no safety nets or redistributive mechanisms.``

      In countries tightly controlled by a domineering autocrat, the resentful majority rarely can do more than grumble among themselves about the privileged minority. But thrusting a democracy movement into the mix can empower and embolden the masses, Chua writes.

      Often goaded by nationalist, religious or racist demagogues, the majority`s grievances against the rich minority quickly morph into appropriation of property, nationalization of industries, religious fanaticism, mob violence, civil war, ethnic cleansing, genocide and other vengeful acts.

      Plenty of evidence

      This phenomenon has occurred in Indonesia, Russia, the Philippines, Zimbabwe, Burma, Kenya -- indeed, much of Africa, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and South America during the last century, Chua asserts.

      President Bush`s approach to Iraq bears all the signs of this sordid history poised to repeat itself. His vision of a thriving Iraqi free market would be a boon to Western corporations; he has even endorsed the sell-off of Iraqi state industries to private, foreign investors without bothering to ensure Iraqi participation. Meanwhile, the ousting of Saddam Hussein and the impatient push for democracy will likely exacerbate tribal tensions as Sunni and Shia Muslims, the Kurds, and numerous smaller factions seek power.

      Focus on the people

      What Bush should be doing is affirming, in both word and deed, that the Iraqi people -- not Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon-Mobil and their ilk -- will benefit most from the development of Iraqi resources and the rise of civilian-run government.

      ``Because the United States is the world`s most powerful and most resented market-dominant minority, every move we make with respect to Iraq is being closely scrutinized,`` Chua said. ``The single most important thing for the United States to do is to change the prevailing perception in Iraq that U.S. companies are planning to plunder the country`s resources and that Iraqis will not be able to control their own resources and destinies.

      `Visible measures`

      ``It is vital that the United States take visible, symbolic measures to ensure that the new Iraqi government -- unlike Saddam Hussein`s regime -- includes the Iraqi people in the benefits of Iraq`s oil wealth.``

      It`s hard to imagine Bush promoting a model of democracy and capitalism for Iraq that also encourages a broader distribution of wealth -- he doesn`t even advocate that for his own country. But America`s ultimate triumph in Iraq and beyond will depend on being seen as a nation that helps the people of the world prosper, not one that prospers at their expense.

      Copyright 1996-2003 Knight Ridder.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 00:39:46
      Beitrag Nr. 10.243 ()
      $$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 10:20:29
      Beitrag Nr. 10.244 ()
      The privatisation of war
      · $30bn goes to private military
      · Fears over `hired guns` policy
      · British firms get big slice of contracts
      · Deals in Baghdad, Kabul and Balkans

      Ian Traynor
      Wednesday December 10, 2003
      The Guardian

      Private corporations have penetrated western warfare so deeply that they are now the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq after the Pentagon, a Guardian investigation has established.

      While the official coalition figures list the British as the second largest contingent with around 9,900 troops, they are narrowly outnumbered by the 10,000 private military contractors now on the ground.

      The investigation has also discovered that the proportion of contracted security personnel in the firing line is 10 times greater than during the first Gulf war. In 1991, for every private contractor, there were about 100 servicemen and women; now there are 10.

      The private sector is so firmly embedded in combat, occupation and peacekeeping duties that the phenomenon may have reached the point of no return: the US military would struggle to wage war without it.

      While reliable figures are difficult to come by and governmental accounting and monitoring of the contracts are notoriously shoddy, the US army estimates that of the $87bn (£50.2bn) earmarked this year for the broader Iraqi campaign, including central Asia and Afghanistan, one third of that, nearly $30bn, will be spent on contracts to private companies.

      The myriad military and security companies thriving on this largesse are at the sharp end of a revolution in military affairs that is taking us into unknown territory - the partial privatisation of war.

      "This is a trend that is growing and Iraq is the high point of the trend," said Peter Singer, a security analyst at Washington`s Brookings Institution. "This is a sea change in the way we prosecute warfare. There are historical parallels, but we haven`t seen them for 250 years."

      When America launched its invasion in March, the battleships in the Gulf were manned by US navy personnel. But alongside them sat civilians from four companies operating some of the world`s most sophisticated weapons systems.

      When the unmanned Predator drones, the Global Hawks, and the B-2 stealth bombers went into action, their weapons systems, too, were operated and maintained by non-military personnel working for private companies.

      The private sector is even more deeply involved in the war`s aftermath. A US company has the lucrative contracts to train the new Iraqi army, another to recruit and train an Iraqi police force.

      But this is a field in which British companies dominate, with nearly half of the dozen or so private firms in Iraq coming from the UK.

      The big British player in Iraq is Global Risk International, based in Hampton, Middlesex. It is supplying hired Gurkhas, Fijian paramilitaries and, it is believed, ex-SAS veterans, to guard the Baghdad headquarters of Paul Bremer, the US overlord, according to analysts.

      It is a trend that has been growing worldwide since the end of the cold war, a booming business which entails replacing soldiers wherever possible with highly paid civilians and hired guns not subject to standard military disciplinary procedures.

      The biggest US military base built since Vietnam, Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, was constructed and continues to be serviced by private contractors. At Tuzla in northern Bosnia, headquarters for US peacekeepers, everything that can be farmed out to private businesses has been. The bill so far runs to more than $5bn. The contracts include those to the US company ITT, which supplies the armed guards, overwhelmingly US private citizens, at US installations.

      In Israel, a US company supplies the security for American diplomats, a very risky business. In Colombia, a US company flies the planes destroying the coca plantations and the helicopter gunships protecting them, in what some would characterise as a small undeclared war.

      In Kabul, a US company provides the bodyguards to try to save President Hamid Karzai from assassination, raising questions over whether they are combatants in a deepening conflict with emboldened Taliban insurgents.

      And in the small town of Hadzici west of Sarajevo, a military compound houses the latest computer technology, the war games simulations challenging the Bosnian army`s brightest young officers.

      Crucial to transforming what was an improvised militia desperately fighting for survival into a modern army fit eventually to join Nato, the army computer centre was established by US officers who structured, trained, and armed the Bosnian military. The Americans accomplished a similar mission in Croatia and are carrying out the same job in Macedonia.

      The input from the US military has been so important that the US experts can credibly claim to have tipped the military balance in a region ravaged by four wars in a decade. But the American officers, including several four-star generals, are retired, not serving. They work, at least directly, not for the US government, but for a private company, Military Professional Resources Inc.

      "In the Balkans MPRI are playing an incredibly critical role. The balance of power in the region was altered by a private company. That`s one measure of the sea change," said Mr Singer, the author of a recent book on the subject, Corporate Warriors.

      The surge in the use of private companies should not be confused with the traditional use of mercenaries in armed conflicts. The use of mercenaries is outlawed by the Geneva conventions, but no one is accusing the Pentagon, while awarding more than 3,000 contracts to private companies over the past decade, of violating the laws of war.

      The Pentagon will "pursue additional opportunities to outsource and privatise", the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, pledged last year and military analysts expect him to try to cut a further 200,000 jobs in the armed forces.

      It is this kind of "downsizing" that has fed the growth of the military private sector.

      Since the end of the cold war it is reckoned that six million servicemen have been thrown on to the employment market with little to peddle but their fighting and military skills. The US military is 60% the size of a decade ago, the Soviet collapse wrecked the colossal Red Army, the East German military melted away, the end of apartheid destroyed the white officer class in South Africa. The British armed forces, notes Mr Singer, are at their smallest since the Napoleonic wars.

      The booming private sector has soaked up much of this manpower and expertise.

      It also enables the Americans, in particular, to wage wars by proxy and without the kind of congressional and media oversight to which conventional deployments are subject.

      From the level of the street or the trenches to the rarefied corridors of strategic analysis and policy-making, however, the problems surfacing are immense and complex.

      One senior British officer complains that his driver was recently approached and offered a fortune to move to a "rather dodgy outfit". Ex-SAS veterans in Iraq can charge up to $1,000 a day.

      "There`s an explosion of these companies attracting our servicemen financially," said Rear Admiral Hugh Edleston, a Royal Navy officer who is just completing three years as chief military adviser to the international administration running Bosnia.

      He said that outside agencies were sometimes better placed to provide training and resources. "But you should never mix serving military with security operations. You need to be absolutely clear on the division between the military and the paramilitary."

      "If these things weren`t privatised, uniformed men would have to do it and that draws down your strength," said another senior retired officer engaged in the private sector. But he warned: "There is a slight risk that things can get out of hand and these companies become small armies themselves."

      And in Baghdad or Bogota, Kabul or Tuzla, there are armed company employees effectively licensed to kill. On the job, say guarding a peacekeepers` compound in Tuzla, the civilian employees are subject to the same rules of engagement as foreign troops.

      But if an American GI draws and uses his weapon in an off-duty bar brawl, he will be subject to the US judicial military code. If an American guard employed by the US company ITT in Tuzla does the same, he answers to Bosnian law. By definition these companies are frequently operating in "failed states" where national law is notional. The risk is the employees can literally get away with murder.

      Or lesser, but appalling crimes. Dyncorp, for example, a Pentagon favourite, has the contract worth tens of millions of dollars to train an Iraqi police force. It also won the contracts to train the Bosnian police and was implicated in a grim sex slavery scandal, with its employees accused of rape and the buying and selling of girls as young as 12. A number of employees were fired, but never prosecuted. The only court cases to result involved the two whistleblowers who exposed the episode and were sacked.

      "Dyncorp should never have been awarded the Iraqi police contract," said Madeleine Rees, the chief UN human rights officer in Sarajevo.

      Of the two court cases, one US police officer working for Dyncorp in Bosnia, Kathryn Bolkovac, won her suit for wrongful dismissal. The other involving a mechanic, Ben Johnston, was settled out of court. Mr Johnston`s suit against Dyncorp charged that he "witnessed co-workers and supervisors literally buying and selling women for their own personal enjoyment, and employees would brag about the various ages and talents of the individual slaves they had purchased".

      There are other formidable problems surfacing in what is uncharted territory - issues of loyalty, accountability, ideology, and national interest. By definition, a private military company is in Iraq or Bosnia not to pursue US, UN, or EU policy, but to make money.

      The growing clout of the military services corporations raises questions about an insidious, longer-term impact on governments` planning, strategy and decision-taking.

      Mr Singer argues that for the first time in the history of the modern nation state, governments are surrendering one of the essential and defining attributes of statehood, the state`s monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

      But for those on the receiving end, there seems scant alternative.

      "I had some problems with some of the American generals," said Enes Becirbasic, a Bosnian military official who managed the Bosnian side of the MPRI projects to build and arm a Bosnian army. "It`s a conflict of interest. I represent our national interest, but they`re businessmen. I would have preferred direct cooperation with state organisations like Nato or the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. But we had no choice. We had to use MPRI."


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 10:23:45
      Beitrag Nr. 10.245 ()
      The new tragedy in Afghanistan
      A genuine chance to reconstruct the country is being squandered

      Conor Foley and Mark Lattimer
      Wednesday December 10, 2003
      The Guardian

      The optimism of those involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan took a downward turn at about the same time aid workers started getting killed. Bettina Goislard, a 29-year-old French national working for the UN refugee agency, was murdered on November 16 as she drove through Ghazni. Two gunmen on a motorbike drove up beside her vehicle and shot her six times. Two months earlier, five Afghan staff of a Danish aid organisation had been taken from their car and gunned down on the roadside.

      At least 11 aid workers have been murdered in the past three months as part of a new strategy by opponents of President Karzai`s government. The killings are a demonstration that much of the country is still ungovernable and they increase the suffering of the civilian population by disrupting the delivery of assistance.

      They also show how misguided US policy on Afghanistan has become. The concentration on the "war on terror" and the attempt to defeat terrorist violence by military means have been a major cause of the current crisis and, paradoxically, helped create the conditions for the Taliban to rebuild support.

      The Loya Jirga, or grand tribal assembly, due to be held today but postponed until the weekend, has been called to approve a constitution intended to steer the country to a stable, democratic future. It couldn`t have come at a worse time. Last Wednesday two US soldiers were injured in a grenade attack in Kandahar. On Friday a UN worker was killed in an ambush on the road to Herat. On Saturday 20 people were badly injured by a bomb that devastated Kandahar, and a US air strike in Ghazni aimed at a former Taliban commander killed nine children.

      What has gone so badly wrong? The Afghan transitional government, put in place after the Bonn peace accords in December 2001, was dominated by the US-backed Northern Alliance and, with the exception of Karzai, accords no positions of power to ethnic Pashtun, who provided the powerbase of the Taliban. After the fall of the Taliban, some 60,000 Pashtun fled the north in the face of revenge attacks by Uzbek and Tajik militias. The US continued to provide support to local warlords in its fight against the remnants of the Taliban in 2002, despite the fact that the new Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission was building up a massive caseload of complaints against the militias. It is hardly surprising that few Pashtun, or civilians from any group, feel they have a stake in the government.

      Last Thursday, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Afghanistan to meet two prominent warlords, Rashid Dostum and Atta Mohammed, who have spent much of the past year fighting each other. He also had a photo call with the beleaguered Karzai, to whom he offered words of encouragement: "Those who have been defeated... would like to come back... but they will not have that opportunity." But in the absence of better security, legitimacy conferred by the US is a liability.

      Even before the Taliban re-emerged, the authority of the transitional government did not extend much beyond the capital. In October the UN security council extended the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force, but it is yet to be deployed beyond Kabul. The country remains essentially lawless. Many government departments are headed by former commanders and once again Afghanistan is providing three-quarters of the world`s opium crop.

      The tragedy of Afghanistan`s faltering reconstruction is that the Bonn accords, conducted under the auspices of the UN and supported by Afghanistan`s neighbours as well as the major internal factions, gave the country a genuine political agreement on which to build. The draft constitution due to be debated this weekend is in many ways an inspiring document, pledging the country to a multi-ethnic future, entrenching the universal declaration of human rights, and providing protection for minority rights.

      But its implementation remains a distant hope. Elections following approval of the constitution are due in June, but these are likely to be postponed, further damaging Karzai`s credibility. The UN secretary-general has noted that the security required to enable eligible Afghans to participate fully in elections "does not really exist".

      To provide that security and ensure that the billions of dollars pledged to Afghanistan are received will require a major international effort. The US, responsible for two out of three foreign troops in the country, cannot evade its responsibility, but it needs to discharge it according to the values it preaches. One of the big lessons from Afghanistan is that good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law are not optional when it comes to rebuilding a country, but an intrinsic part of reconstruction.

      · Conor Foley is programme manager for the Norwegian Refugee Council`s information and legal aid centres in Afghanistan. Mark Lattimer is director of Minority Rights Group International

      www.minorityrights.org


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 10:25:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.246 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 10:31:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.247 ()
      December 10, 2003
      Six Afghan Children Killed in U.S. Attack
      By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

      Filed at 3:30 a.m. ET

      KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Six children were killed during an assault by U.S. forces on a compound in eastern Afghanistan, a U.S. military spokesman said Wednesday, the second time in a week that civilians have died in action against Taliban and al-Qaida suspects.

      The children died during an attack on Friday against a complex near the eastern city of Gardez where a renegade Afghan commander, Mullah Jalani, was believed to have stocked weapons, said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty.

      ``The next day we discovered the bodies of two adults and six children under a collapsed,`` he said. ``We had no indication there were noncombatants`` in the compound.

      Jalani was not at the site, 12 miles east of Gardez, but Hilferty said nine other people were arrested.

      Hilferty said that U.S. warplanes and troops attacked the compound in a nighttime raid, setting off secondary explosions. The bodies were discovered the following day. They appeared to have been crushed by a falling wall, he said.

      He expressed regret over the death of civilians in Afghanistan, but said it was impossible to completely eliminate such incidents.

      ``We try very hard not to kill anyone. We would prefer to capture the terrorists rather than kill them,`` Hilferty said. ``But in this incident, if noncombatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars in a compound known to be used by a terrorist we are not completely responsible for the consequences.``

      Hilferty said he was not sure if the wall collapsed because of U.S. fire or the secondary explosions caused by weapons stored at the site. There was no word of U.S. casualties in the operation.

      The news comes on the heels of a tragic U.S. military blunder in neighboring Ghazni province on Saturday. Nine children were found dead in a field after an attack by an A-10 ground attack aircraft that was targeting a Taliban suspect.

      U.S. officials have apologized for that incident. They originally claimed that the attack killed the intended target, a former Taliban district commander named Mullah Wazir suspected of recent attacks on road workers. But U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad on Tuesday said they were no longer certain.

      Villagers say the man killed was a local laborer who had just returned from Iran and that Mullah Wazir had left the area days before the attack.

      The Ghazni deaths produced outrage and concern, from Afghan villagers to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said he was ``profoundly saddened`` by the deaths and urged a full investigation. Afghan officials warned that such mistakes will undermine support for the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai and tolerance of foreign troops.

      ``I can`t guarantee that we will not injure more civilians,`` Hilferty said. ``I wish I could.``



      Copyright 2003 The Associated Press
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 10:33:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.248 ()
      December 10, 2003
      High Payments to Halliburton for Fuel in Iraq
      By DON VAN NATTA Jr.

      The United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show.

      Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.

      The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in October when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq`s oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available for 71 cents wholesale.

      But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents recently provided to Democratic Congressional investigators and shared with The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon of fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey.

      A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, defended the company`s pricing. "It is expensive to purchase, ship, and deliver fuel into a wartime situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting," she said. She said the company`s Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which administers the contract, must work in a "hazardous" and "hostile environment," and that its profit on the contract is small.

      The price of fuel sold in Iraq, set by the government, is 5 cents to 15 cents a gallon. The price is a political issue, and has not been raised to avoid another hardship for Iraqis.

      The Iraqi state oil company and the Pentagon`s Defense Energy Support Center import fuel from Kuwait for less than half of Halliburton`s price, the records show.

      Ms. Hall said Halliburton`s subcontractor had had more than 20 trucks damaged or stolen, nine drivers injured and one driver killed when making fuel runs into Iraq.

      She said the contract was also expensive because it was hard to find a company with the trucks necessary to move the fuel, and because Halliburton is only able to negotiate a 30-day contract for fuel. "It is not as simple as dropping by a service station for a fill-up," she said.

      A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, Bob Faletti, also defended the price of imported fuel.

      "Everyone is talking about high costs, but no one is talking about the dangers, or the number of fuel trucks that have been blown up," Mr. Faletti said. "That`s the reason it is so expensive." He said recent government audits had found no improprieties in the Halliburton contract.

      Gasoline imports are one of the largest costs of Iraqi reconstruction efforts so far. Although Iraq sits on the third-largest oil reserves in the world, production has been hampered by pipeline sabotage, power failures and an antiquated infrastructure that was hurt by 11 years of United Nations sanctions.

      Nearly $500 million has already been spent to bring gas, benzene and other fuels into Iraq, according to the corps. And as part of the $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan that President Bush signed last month, $18.6 billion will be spent on reconstruction projects, including $690 million for gasoline and other fuel imports in 2004.

      From May to late October, Halliburton imported about 61 million gallons of fuel from Kuwait and about 179 million from Turkey, at a total cost of more than $383 million.

      A company`s profits on the transport and sale of gasoline are usually razor-thin, with companies losing contracts if they overbid by half a penny a gallon. Independent experts who reviewed Halliburton`s percentage of its gas importation contract said the company`s 26-cent charge per gallon of gas from Kuwait appeared to be extremely high.

      "I have never seen anything like this in my life," said Phil Verleger, a California oil economist and the president of the consulting firm PK Verleger LLC. "That`s a monopoly premium — that`s the only term to describe it. Every logistical firm or oil subsidiary in the United States and Europe would salivate to have that sort of contract."

      In March, Halliburton was awarded a no-competition contract to repair Iraq`s oil industry, and it has already received more than $1.4 billion in work. That award has been the focus of Congressional scrutiny in part because Vice President Dick Cheney is Halliburton`s former chief executive officer. As part of its contract, Halliburton began importing fuel in the spring when gasoline was in short supply in large Iraqi cities.

      The government`s accounting shows that Halliburton paid its Kuwait subcontractor $1.17 a gallon, when it was selling for 71 cents a gallon wholesale in the Middle East.

      In addition, Halliburton is paying $1.21 a gallon to transport the fuel an estimated 400 miles from Kuwait to Iraq, the documents show. It is paying 22 cents a gallon to transport gas into Iraq from Turkey.

      The 26 cents a gallon it keeps includes a 2-cent fee and 24 cents for "mark-up costs," the documents show. The mark-up portion is intended to cover the overhead for administering the contract.

      Ms. Hall of Halliburton said it was "misleading" for the corps to call it a mark-up. "This simply means overhead costs, which includes the general and administrative costs like light bulbs, paper and employees," she said. "These costs are specifically allowable under the contract with the Corps of Engineers, are defined by detailed regulations, and are scrutinized and approved by U.S. government auditors."

      In recent weeks, the costs of importing fuel from Kuwait have risen. Figures provided recently to Congressional investigators by the corps show that Halliburton was charging as much as $3.06 per gallon for fuel from Kuwait in late November.

      If the corps concludes that Halliburton has successfully administered the gas contract, it could be paid an additional 5 percent of the total value of the gas it imported.

      Halliburton`s Kuwait subcontractor was hired in May. Halliburton and the Army Corps of Engineers refused to identify the company, citing security reasons. Aides to Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who has been a critic of the fuel contract, said government officials had identified it as the Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company. Several independent petroleum experts in the Middle East and the United States said they had not heard of Altanmia.

      Copies of the Army Corps documents were given to Mr. Waxman`s office, which provided them to The Times.

      Iraqi`s state oil company, SOMO, pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in gas, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, the aides to Mr. Waxman said. The gasoline transported by SOMO — and by Halliburton`s subcontractor — are delivered to the same depots in Iraq and often use the same military escorts.

      The Pentagon`s Defense Energy Support Center pays $1.08 to $1.19 per gallon for the gas it imports from Kuwait, Congressional aides said. That includes the price of the gas and its transportation costs.

      The money for Halliburton`s gas contract has come principally from the United Nations oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been borne by American taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Mr. Bush last month, taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning early next year.

      In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Waxman responded to the latest information on to costs of the Halliburton contract. "It`s inexcusable that Americans are being charged absurdly high prices to buy gasoline for Iraqis and outrageous that the White House is letting it happen," he said.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 10:35:19
      Beitrag Nr. 10.249 ()
      December 9, 2003
      Q&A: European Defense Strategy

      From the Council on Foreign Relations, December 9, 2003


      What is at stake in the debate about a European defense force?

      The European Union (E.U.) is planning to create a mobile military force designed to be deployed quickly anywhere around the world. Some American officials are concerned that the new force will undermine the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and threaten transatlantic ties. E.U. nations counter that it will give them the flexibility to make their own policy decisions about dispatching troops when NATO is unwilling to do so. Some experts say the tensions surrounding discussions of the new force and a so-called European defense identity constitute the latest round of ongoing U.S.-European differences.

      How was the recent conflict over E.U. plans for a new military headquarters related to the defense force?

      Some E.U. countries, led by France and Germany, had proposed building a new operations center for the force--effectively a headquarters for E.U. military planners--in Tervuren, Belgium. The United States strongly opposed this, saying it would duplicate NATO capabilities and draw scarce resources from NATO headquarters in Mons, Belgium. At a December 2 meeting of E.U. foreign ministers in Naples, Britain objected to the plan, and it was abandoned. Instead, E.U. military planners will remain part of the NATO military staff.

      Why do the Europeans want the extra military capability?

      Because, some experts say, the United States, as the largest single contributor of troops and funds, has historically dominated NATO. A 54-year-old collective security organization with 19 members, including the United States and Canada, NATO guaranteed the security of Europe and North America against the Soviet threat during the Cold War. After the Soviet Union broke apart, NATO took on expanded peacekeeping duties. With its own force, "Europe can make an independent [military] decision, and not be beholden to the U.S.," says William L. Nash, the John W. Vessey senior fellow and director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. There are currently 15 E.U. member nations; 11 of those also belong to NATO. E.U. membership will expand to 25 on May 1, 2004, and NATO membership is expected to expand to 26, also by May 2004. Overlap of the memberships will increase as a result.

      Has U.S. domination of NATO caused tensions in the past?

      Yes. Some in Europe faulted Washington for responding too slowly to violent upheaval in Bosnia and Kosovo and the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. NATO soldiers did ultimately intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo, but not in Rwanda.

      The Bosnia crisis was a wake-up call, says Kirsty Hughes, senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels. Europeans had to acknowledge that, without U.S. military force acting through NATO, they could not stop genocide on the continent, she says. "There was such a sense of shame about it, and the sense that Europe should have acted much sooner and more strongly" to stop the ethnic cleaning and other atrocities that accompanied the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. As a result, Hughes says, many European governments resolved to increase Europe`s international political clout and military muscle.

      What would the force consist of?

      Planned since December 1999, the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF) would be made up of some 60,000 troops. The mobile force could be deployed within 30-60 days to international crisis spots and be sustained in the field for up to a year. Military experts say the force will take three years to assemble and make fully operational.

      Which countries would take part?

      Experts say that because only a few European countries have large enough armies to deploy troops abroad, ERRF soldiers would be drawn primarily from France, Germany, Britain, and Poland--much of the same pool of European troops used for NATO missions. Poland needs financial assistance to contribute troops. The largest contingents of soldiers for ERRF would come from Germany, which has committed 13,500 troops; France, with 12,000; and Great Britain, which offered 12,500 troops plus members of the Royal Navy and up to 72 combat aircraft. Smaller countries such as Italy and Spain have committed 6,000 troops each; Finland and Sweden offered 2,000 soldiers each.

      What kinds of missions is the force designed to take on?

      The force will be equipped for peacekeeping, humanitarian, and rescue missions--not expeditionary combat ones--in "hot spots" like East Timor or Liberia. It will respond to U.N. calls for peacekeeping forces, assist civilians in humanitarian crises, and intervene to separate warring factions. The E.U. force will be deployed only on international missions that NATO is unwilling to undertake.

      Why do Europeans think the force is necessary?

      Many European leaders have long advocated a joint European military force outside of NATO. But much of the recent impetus for the idea came after the contentious conflict over Iraq, when European public opinion was strongly opposed to the American-led war. The sometimes bitter debate increased calls for a non-NATO military option. Fraser Cameron, director of studies at the European Policy Centre in Brussels, writes in a debate on NATO`s website that "Europe has to look after its own security and...play a larger role in regional and global security." Some European officials say they`re only doing what the United States has long encouraged them to do: devote more resources to the military and attempt to lessen the "capacity gap" with the United States.

      What`s the capacity gap?

      The difference in military capabilities among countries. European experts say there is a large U.S.-E.U. capacity gap because Europe spends much less on defense and many E.U. defense resources are wasted through duplication among various countries. "Why does the Czech Republic or Denmark need an air force?" Fraser writes. In many cases, U.S. military capabilities far exceed those of its E.U. counterparts. Some examples defense experts cite: precision weapons, air-to-air refueling capabilities, surveillance equipment, and heavy-lift aircraft used to transport troops to conflict situations.

      How much do the European Union and the United States spend on defense?

      The United States spends twice as much as the European Union: $393 billion in 2003, compared with $200 billion of combined E.U. defense spending, according to NATO. The highest-spending individual E.U. countries were Britain (£27 billion, or $47 billion), France (€40 billion, or $48 billion) and Germany (€31 billion, or $37 billion). Smaller countries spent far less: Portugal spent €3 billion, or $3.6 billion on defense last year, and Luxembourg spent €205 million, or $247 million.

      Who`s opposed to the ERRF?

      Some U.S. and Canadian officials. James Wright, assistant deputy minister in charge of Canada`s global security policy, told a group of diplomats in Ottawa on November 26 that a separate E.U. military structure was "a poor use of limited resources, particularly European," and also "risks weakening the important transatlantic link between Europe and North America." U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on November 30, said, "I think there is no reason for something else to be competitive with NATO."

      What is the controversy over the NATO charter`s Article 5?

      Article 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty commits NATO members to mutual defense. A clause in the European Union`s draft constitution would have also obliged members to defend each other against attacks. After the United States made its displeasure with this proposed E.U. clause known, Britain and Italy worked to tone down the draft constitution language to avoid a conflict with NATO. E.U. leaders will meet December 12-13 in Brussels to debate and perhaps approve the new constitution.

      What are the prospects that the E.U. force will eventually rival NATO?

      Experts are divided. Some European officials see the E.U. force as eventually taking on more of NATO`s duties, for example in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and possibly even Iraq. But other experts say this is a long way off. "I`m not convinced that [the Europeans] are really going to get their act together," Nash says. "I don`t think their publics are willing to make the investment to make this a truly capable force." Aldo Amati, first consular officer at the Italian Embassy in Washington, says that E.U. members have no plans to increase their defense budgets, adding, "The E.U. rapid reaction force is a kind of mantra rather than a reality." Hughes points out that the European Union has nominally had a common foreign policy for a decade but has only recently started adopting common stances.

      How does the U.S. feel about increased European military capacity?

      Reactions are mixed, say experts. While administration officials have questioned the need for the ERRF and a separate military planning staff, the United States has long urged Europe to spend more on defense and play a more vigorous role in its own security. At the same time, many experts say, the United States is loath to lose the dominant influence it has within NATO. Others point out that the the ERRF is an extension of a collective European identity, which is a central goal of European unification. "America should be happy about the [military] developments in Europe, because eventually we`ll be able to give a hand--effectively," Amati says. Italy currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union.

      What`s the state of the transatlantic relationship?

      Conflicted. "There`s a very substantial crisis in E.U.-U.S. relations" right now that reflects "very different attitudes and ideas about how to behave in the world and how to address world problems," Hughes says. "There`s a new dynamic of global relations: the United States is seen, for the present and foreseeable future, as less multilateral than Europe would want," she says. Amati says, though, that the relationship is better than it was six months ago, and will continue to improve. "We`ve made a lot of steps forward," he says. NATO officials have downplayed any conflict with the European Union. A press release after the December 4 meeting of NATO ministers in Brussels said that NATO and the European Union "share common strategic interests, and... [are] strongly committed to enhancing our cooperation." Some experts say NATO will eventually take on a role in Iraq, an idea proposed by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the Brussels NATO meeting.

      Which countries are promoting a separate European defense policy?

      France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Belgium, with the French taking the lead. Many Americans see France as consistently obstructing the United States. "Frankly, since [French President Charles] de Gaulle pulled France out of the NATO military structure in [1967], we`ve always been suspicious of French intentions," says Michael P. Peters, executive vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations, NATO expert, and former career army officer. Some experts say France, with memories of its empire and an elevated view of its importance in the modern world, has cast itself as the anti-U.S. option, trying to rally other countries to oppose the United States.

      Do all European countries subscribe to the French position?

      No. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac have come to symbolize the differences in the debate over European foreign policy. Cameron writes that Europe is currently divided between the "Blair view" of transatlantic relations--the United States is so dominant that Europe`s only hope of influencing it is to be a loyal ally--and the "Chirac view"--the European Union and the United States do not share the same view of the world, so Europe needs to pursue its own aims and develop its own military capabilities to become a more effective global player. Some experts fear that the ERRF is the first step to building a European army, an idea France has supported in the past.

      What is Britain`s role in the transatlantic relationship?

      Experts say the United States is reassured that Britain will be part of the planning for the expanded E.U. military force, looking to its Iraq war ally to protect NATO`s interests. Blair--who some experts credit for raising the issue of a stronger E.U. role in defense some five years ago--initially opposed a plan proposed earlier this year by France, Germany, Belgium, and Luxembourg to create a "core Europe defense organization." Experts say Blair, who sees himself as a bridge between the United States and Europe, was worried that the idea would deepen transatlantic divisions over the Iraq war and convince Americans that France and Germany were trying to undermine NATO. Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, wrote in The Financial Times on December 2 that Blair was convinced that Europeans were determined to create an independent European security role and decided that Britain should take a lead in shaping it. With Blair`s involvement, France and Germany reached a compromise with Britain in late November: the group would continue planning the E.U. force while reaffirming NATO as the centerpiece of European security. Blair was instrumental in persuading France and Germany to give up plans for a separate E.U. military headquarters.

      What is France`s role in NATO?

      "They`re part of the political alliance, but not integrated into the military command structure," says Peters. While there are French officers at NATO`s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (known by the acronym SHAPE), they are not a part of day-to-day planning operations, nor are there French generals in the NATO command hierarchy. Some NATO members, including the United States, view France`s attempts to influence NATO deployments as disingenuous, since it can choose not to participate in them. "France has for a long time been a controversial ally in NATO," says Amati. The French "always try to counterbalance the United States, and inject maybe some ambivalence into NATO."

      Has the European Union led military operations?

      Yes. The European Union is overseeing a peacekeeping mission in Macedonia, commanding NATO forces, and is planning to take over NATO`s missions in Bosnia by the end of 2004. In June, a French-led force carried out a U.N.-backed peacekeeping mission in the Congo, after NATO declined to intervene there. Many experts see the Congo mission as less of a trial run for the E.U. force than a French operation. "It was a French mission with an E.U. hat," Amati says.

      -- by Esther Pan, staff writer, cfr.org.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 10:38:07
      Beitrag Nr. 10.250 ()
      December 10, 2003
      Al Gore Places an Early Bet

      Wearing the mantle of Al Gore`s newly minted endorsement, Howard Dean has completed his ascent from political nowhere to the front-runner`s spot in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Yesterday`s surprising endorsement highlighted one of the unintended consequences of the Democrats` vaunted nomination reforms more than a generation ago. Having abolished the smoke-filled convention free-for-all, the party has created an ethereal system in which a candidate`s job is to conjure an early sense of a steamroller while the nation mutely watches. For the Dean campaign, Mr. Gore`s blessing was just what the doctor ordered.

      When Mr. Gore and Dr. Dean appeared together yesterday in Harlem, the moment conveyed two messages. One was the Democratic leadership`s great desire for early unity — Mr. Gore warned his party against "the luxury of fighting among ourselves." But voters have a funny way of inserting themselves into these contests, even when the political leadership would clearly prefer to march in lock step toward next November`s election.

      New Hampshire voters, in particular, always like an underdog, and Dr. Dean, with his new head-of-the-pack status, doesn`t necessarily qualify. The first real test of Mr. Gore`s ability to transfer ballot-booth power — particularly among African-Americans and in the South — will arrive after Iowa and New Hampshire in the primary contests of early February.

      The other message was the degree to which the Democrats have bought into the theory that victory in November will belong to the party that best energizes its passionate base. It is a concept embraced by President Bush`s political guru, Karl Rove, and, now, by Mr. Gore, in his implicit turning away from the triangulation politics of the Clintonites who courted swing voters so well.

      Yesterday, there was a hint of wistfulness, even envy, in Mr. Gore`s appreciation of Dr. Dean`s go-for-broke style. Candidates who feel blindsided by Mr. Gore`s surprising initiative still have the opportunity to go for broke themselves and push their own agendas. The pity for the nation will be if the most exciting moment in the primary cycle has just occurred.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 10:40:54
      Beitrag Nr. 10.251 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 10:43:26
      Beitrag Nr. 10.252 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 10:57:16
      Beitrag Nr. 10.253 ()

      The shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf, Iraq, draws Shiite Muslim pilgrims by the thousands from around the Middle East.
      washingtonpost.com
      In Revival Of Najaf, Lessons for A New Iraq
      Shiite Clergy Build A Spiritual Capital

      By Anthony Shadid
      Washington Post Foreign Service
      Wednesday, December 10, 2003; Page A01


      NAJAF, Iraq -- The story of Iraq is written on the walls of the Prophet`s Street.

      Staring down on the crowds of Najaf are portraits of men killed during 35 years of Baath Party rule. They were clergy, their families and followers who were assassinated or executed, often tortured first. Along the street`s colonnade are leaflets celebrating the community`s new freedoms. Signs announce the anniversary of the death of Shiite Islam`s most revered saint, and rickety stands offer the beads and prayer stones of ritual long discouraged. On banners and posters are the demands of the resurgent community. Elections, some insist. Others urge loyalty to the clergy or call on the young to join the muammimeen, or turbaned ones.

      Through the landscape walked Heidar Moammar, a gaunt, 25-year-old cleric in a white turban.

      "What was forbidden is beloved," he said, smiling as he glanced at the signs of the city`s reawakening.

      Across a thousand-year history as a seat of Shiite Islam, Najaf has weathered pillaging by puritanical tribes from the desert, the tyranny of Sunni Muslim rulers in Baghdad and the ascent of rival seminaries in Iraq and Iran. But in the wake of the fall of former president Saddam Hussein, a rebirth is underway in a city that, by virtue of its religious stature, looks to Baghdad as its equal. Long-dormant Shiite seminaries are proliferating, hotels are being built to cope with tens of thousands of pilgrims, and the bazaars of Najaf are boasting of profits that have doubled, even tripled, despite growing frustration with a lack of basic services.

      More than just a city`s renaissance, Najaf`s revival is a story of shifting fortunes and unintended consequences in the tumult of postwar Iraq. The U.S. invasion dismantled one system, the construction of another is lagging, and a vacuum of leadership has ensued. With renewed confidence, the clergy have begun fashioning their headquarters into the spiritual capital of the country, and their leaders as the guardians of Iraq`s Shiite majority. Few endorse Iran`s Islamic government and perhaps even fewer support the U.S. goal of a secular state. But in between are vigorous debates -- over law and religion, Islam and state -- that could resonate throughout the Shiite world, where Iran and its revolution have long held sway as the unchallenged model.

      Moammar -- a religious student by age 13, a prisoner in Hussein`s jails by 16 -- sees himself as a soldier in that struggle.

      As the call to Friday`s prayers floated along the Prophet`s Street, he walked toward the shrine of Imam Ali, the gold-domed resting place that gives Najaf its sanctity. The melancholy call clashed with the city`s vibrant sounds. Iranian pilgrims chattered in Persian. Television blared footage of a Shiite ceremony from Iran and the training of a Shiite militia. Vendors hawked cassettes of ritual chants of grief, near piles of yellow brick for construction. Along one wall, scrawled in red, was a slogan that declared, "Saddam is a criminal."

      "This is the freedom that is available to the Shiites," Moammar said. "In the time of the tyrant Saddam, no one could let even a prayer fall from his tongue."

      He glanced at leaflets announcing the opening of new religious centers -- Imam Mahdi, Imam Ali, Imam Sadiq. "Space is very limited," one said. An advertisement offered courses to memorize the Koran. The prize: a trip to the Iranian shrine of Mashhad.

      And, in the tone that tolerates little compromise, politics were in the air. A poster pictured Iran`s revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, his fist raised. "Absolutely no to Israel, absolutely no to America," it said. In another, Mohammed Bakir Hakim, killed with dozens of others in a car bomb in August in Najaf, looked out with a halo around his head. "Our submission is out of the question," it read.

      "The future of Najaf depends on the future of Iraq," Moammar said as he walked the street. He thought for a moment, then insisted the opposite was true as well. "Najaf is the only guarantee for the Shiites and for Iraqis."

      `Money From God`


      Sitting in a lobby smoking a water pipe, with a grin that comes with dazzling profit, Farhan Thijil celebrated his good fortune. For two months, busloads of Iranian pilgrims, seizing the opportunity of an open border, have kept his 45-room hotel booked solid. He has more than tripled his rates -- from $8 to $25. His revenue has jumped five times, he estimated, and he no longer pays taxes. His only inconvenience: angry pilgrims who, he said, feel they are being cheated. (They often are, but not by him, he insisted.) Who does he credit?

      "It`s money from God," said the ebullient Thijil. "And the thanks after that go to the shrine of Imam Ali."

      "If it wasn`t for the shrine," he added, blowing as he flicked his wrist, in a motion that suggested throwing it all away, "nothing."

      Baghdad and Najaf are both cities of geographical coincidence. Baghdad was founded by a medieval Arab emperor, who chose the site after spending what a contemporary historian called "the sweetest and gentlest night on Earth." By tradition, Najaf was founded when a dying Ali -- a son-in-law and cousin of the prophet Muhammad whom Shiites consider his heir -- instructed his followers to put his body on a camel and bury him where it knelt.

      To their residents, both are cities whose pasts outshine their present. But unlike Baghdad -- mired as it is in frustration and violence -- Najaf has showed signs of recapturing its luster.

      "A million times better than Baghdad," as Thijil put it.

      Real estate has skyrocketed. Next to Thijil`s hotel, a 7,250-square-foot parcel has gone from a price of $25,000 in 1999 to $1.4 million today. Twenty hotels are under construction; the existing 120 hotels are all full.

      In the covered market -- bombed by the Iraqi army after a 1991 Shiite uprising and then looted by Iraqi soldiers -- Iranian pilgrims haggled with vendors, nearly all of whom speak some Persian. "Visit me! Visit me!" a merchant shouted to visitors in English. Young boys pushed carts down alleys lined with goldsmiths, appliance and clothing stores, and pastry shops baking a Najaf specialty known as dahina.

      "In Saddam`s days, tomorrow was worse than today," said Aqil Rubaie, a jeweler. "Now tomorrow is better than today."

      Like many in Najaf, Rubaie had a list of complaints. Electricity, as in much of Iraq, has become scarcer in past weeks. That, in turn, has hampered the water supply. A shortage of gasoline has made for hours-long waits in lines that snake down the street. Security remains a mantra among residents, who still shudder at the memory of the Aug. 29 car bombing, the worst in Iraq since the government`s fall.

      "We`re a rose between the thorns," he said. "The scent is not enough. We want to grasp it in our hands."

      No one in Najaf seems to know the precise number of pilgrims who have unleashed the boom. The overwhelming majority are from Iran, but others have come from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. For the pilgrims, many of them elderly, Iraq is a journey of a lifetime. Six of the 12 most revered Shiite saints are buried within its borders, and pilgrims typically spend a few days in Najaf before making their way to Karbala, then on to shrines in the Kadhimiya neighborhood of Baghdad and Samarra to the north.

      "There`s 2,000 a day," said Najah Bahash, a jeweler whose family has worked in the market for 40 years.

      "Maybe more," interjected his friend, Heidar Najafi.

      "At night, they`re sleeping in the street!" Bahash said, throwing up his hands.

      Bahash runs a store selling rings of carnelian and other stones thought to bring blessings, and he speaks about traditions with the authority of his family`s experience. This ring, he said, pointing to a particularly old stone from Yemen, stops bleeding. This one, he said, holding up a ruby, regulates the heartbeat. Jade, he added, settles the stomach.

      His revenue from the rings has tripled, and he delights in telling stories about dozens of Sunni businessmen visiting him to ask about opportunities in Najaf. Like the rings, he said, his city is driven by tradition, and its traditions are the key to its future.

      "Najaf is considered the capital of the Shiites," he said. "We expect Najaf to be the capital of the future."

      Surviving Hussein


      Adel Zirgani followed a circuitous path to the seminary.

      Born to a family of eight in the southern city of Nasiriyah, he began his adult life as a reporter for the newspaper Babel, owned by Saddam Hussein`s son Uday. In time, he was fired. He was a gadfly, he said, in a business that tolerated almost no dissent.

      The Persian Gulf War followed, and after that came the Shiite uprising that was encouraged, then abandoned, by the first Bush administration. Scarred by its toll -- thousands killed, their bodies filling mass graves -- Zirgani chose to enter the clergy, splitting his time between study in Najaf and a mosque where he preached in Nasiriyah.

      He estimated that he was detained 10 times in the decade that followed. Of his 30 fellow students, he said, 15 were arrested and 10 were executed. He suspected that of those who weren`t detained, many were spying.

      "I never slept well before the fall of Saddam," he said. "Now I sleep well."

      On this day, he had registered for classes at the Imam Ali College, a new religious school set up by one of Iraq`s leading religious parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. In Hussein`s time, he was afraid to openly accept stipends that serve as a student`s income. Now, at the beginning of each month, he visits the offices of the four highest-ranking ayatollahs and collects a monthly subsidy -- about $12.50 from each, $50 in all. He was determined, he said, to restore respect for the clergy.

      "This is the land of the prophets. This is an Islamic country," he said. "This is where the revival should happen."

      For centuries, Najaf was the preeminent seat of Islamic scholarship. Its seminary, founded in the 11th century and known as the Hawza Ilmiya, often maintained an element of independence. In modern times, brilliant clerics such as Mohammed Baqir Sadr planted the seeds of Shiite religious activism in the 1950s and `60s. But Najaf was long feared for its influence, and Hussein`s Baath Party was well aware of the decisive role the clergy had played in crucial moments of Iraq`s history. Hundreds of clerics were arrested, expelled or killed, independent sources of income were stanched, and students were relentlessly harassed.

      The best estimates say those students numbered in the thousands before the Baath Party seized power in 1968, and in the hundreds -- perhaps dozens -- when it fell. As Najaf emerged after the U.S.-led invasion this spring, it was left with little more than its reputation for past glory.

      "It is still the mother of all Hawzas," said Hussein Sadr, a ranking cleric in Baghdad who was educated in Najaf, referring to the seminary-based fraternity of scholars.

      Along the Prophet`s Street, the new openness is everywhere. Mohammed Baqir Sadr`s books -- imported from Lebanon and copied in bulk in Baghdad and Najaf -- line shelves. At the Imam Sadiq Center, down a winding alley, Majid Zeini shows off his stacks of books from Lebanon`s most prestigious cleric, Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, who once served as the spiritual leader of Hezbollah, a militant Shiite movement. Fadlallah`s religious organization in Beirut sent dozens for free, adding another current to what has become an intellectual free-for-all unmatched anywhere in the Shiite world.

      "The tyrant has collapsed," said Zeini, who returned in September from 23 years of exile, "and new horizons have opened."

      Sitting on a green Persian carpet, leaning against pillows that match, Qassim Hashemi has emerged as a force in the expansion of the city`s religious scholarship. A member of the Supreme Council, Hashemi has helped oversee the establishment of the Islamic University, with a student body of 200. Registration has begun for the Imam Ali College, which specializes in the Shiite equivalent of missionary work and staffing mosques with Friday prayer leaders. He said he expects 300 students, maybe more. A counterpart for women, the Zahra College, is planned to follow. About 160 women have already enrolled, he said, after they met the requirements -- age 17 to 30, high school graduate, their father`s permission and a character evaluation.

      The growth is no less dramatic in the more traditional seminary. At one point, lessons were offered to students in only three mosques and the homes of senior clergy. Renowned seminaries had become dormitories; studying there was considered too risky. Since the fall, however, the number of seminaries has grown to as many as 40, the most influential of them run by a group loyal to a radical cleric, Moqtada Sadr.

      Along with their revival is the return of hundreds of students to Iraq. Hashemi estimated that at least 50 scholars had come from the prestigious Iranian seminary of Qom, which has eclipsed Najaf.

      "Day after day, the Hawza is improving," said Hashemi, who himself returned to Iraq after 13 years studying in Qom. "The day is coming when we will be able to say, `This is the Hawza. Pay attention to it.` "

      Guidance and Direction


      Assembled with brick but constructed by ideas, that Hawza is now being built. Its architects are steeped in tradition, endowed with prosperity and emboldened by ambition. In a contest for leadership, they view themselves as the arbiters of Iraq`s future.

      The judgments they make will echo across a country in ferment and pose the greatest challenges to U.S. aspirations for Iraq. At stake is the very essence of the nation`s future -- the line between religion and law, between faith and government.

      In the clerical families that have long held sway in Najaf, Mohammed Hussein Hakim claims proud parentage. His great-grandfather was Muhsin Hakim, a renowned marja al-taqlid, or source of emulation, the highest clerical rank. His father is Mohammed Saeed Hakim, who sits with three other clerics -- among them Ayatollah Ali Sistani -- as the four marjas in Iraq today. He speaks for his father. His message is that the marjas see this moment in history as theirs.

      "Who will guarantee the rights of the people?" he asked, sitting in the courtyard of his home. "Who will prevent the exploitation of the people and prevent the repetition of the same experience we have already endured?"

      The U.S.-led administration has proposed carrying out Iraq`s transition to sovereignty, beginning with a basic law by February and a provisional government by June. The process -- cobbled together in hasty deliberations -- will play out over months.

      Hakim and other clerics said they viewed the process in years, even decades. Many acknowledge the decisions they make will determine the legacy of the clergy and their city for future generations. Their perspective is shaped by the sense of betrayal and duplicity in the Shiite community`s past. A conversation in Najaf rarely ends without mention of the 1991 uprising. Often referred to are the 1920 revolt against British occupation and battles over Iran`s constitution in the 19th and 20th centuries.

      "We have a previous experience with the foreigners," Hakim said. "Is it possible to trust them?"

      The clerics see themselves as the last and perhaps only bulwark to protect what they call Iraq`s Islamic identity. Suspicions abound -- that the Americans fear elections will show Shiites are an even greater majority, that elections will prevent U.S.-advocated secularism, that elections will give voice to the influential clergy, if only indirectly.

      "America doesn`t cross the seas and spend of millions of dollars for the purpose of leaving," said Bashir Hussein Najafi, the son and spokesman of another marja. Delaying elections, he said, "is another reason for them to remain here."

      But even today, very few in Najaf advocate a direct role for clerics in Iraq`s future government. Many see Iran`s theocracy as an aberration of centuries of Shiite thought in which the clergy were not the rulers, but an effective counter-establishment. Instead, the phrase heard often in Najaf is "irshad wa tawjeeh" -- guidance and direction. Debate is underway over what guidance and direction mean.

      "We believe in God, we believe in the Koran, and I am a Muslim, but there is a difference in claiming you represent God. The person who claims he is the legitimate representative of God is a liar," said Ayad Jamal Din.

      Jamal Din, 42, is a cleric at one end of the debate -- in the clergy`s context, admittedly extreme. He rejects any political role by the four marjas -- three of whom were born outside Iraq. He has no problem, he said, with guidance and direction, but it should amount to no more. Even he hesitates to use the word secularism, given the baggage it carries among clerics. But the concept is clear in his argument -- an unbreakable barrier should be established between religion and state.

      "I`ve said more than once that I have no problem with the president of Iraq being an apostate, Christian or Jew," said Jamal Din, who returned after 24 years in exile. "I don`t want to pray behind the president. I want the president to manage the country."

      Moammar, the cleric walking down the Prophet`s Street, bristled at the notion. The clergy should be able to dismiss the president, he insisted. They should be the final arbiters of what violates sharia, or Islamic law.

      "Sharia is above the law," said another cleric, Mustafa Jabari. "Sharia is the law."

      With Ghaith Shukur, Jabari edits the magazine Holy Najaf, sponsored by Iraq`s marjas. Both have served in the clergy for nearly a decade. Both have weathered Hussein`s repression, and both insist their role will be greater than that advocated by Jamal Din.

      They listed the laws that would contradict sharia -- inheritance laws that did not generally grant male relatives twice as much as female relatives, interest on loans, artificial insemination and taxes beyond traditional religious levies. The marjas would decide when disputes arose. Sharia itself should be the only source of legislation.

      Anything short of that, they said, endangers the country`s Islamic identity.

      Sitting in the magazine office, over cups of sweet, dark tea, Shukur compared the struggle between the Americans and the clergy over the law to two men walking in the desert. They have one piece of bread between them.

      "Who gets it?" he asked.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company

      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 10:58:37
      Beitrag Nr. 10.254 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Iraq Council Votes to Throw Out Iranian Opposition Group


      By Robin Wright and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
      Washington Post Staff Writers
      Wednesday, December 10, 2003; Page A20


      Iraq`s Governing Council voted yesterday to expel the leading Iranian opposition group and confiscate its assets, a surprise move that could alter the regional balance of power. The resolution calls for the eviction of the group`s 3,800 members by the end of the month.

      The move came as the American governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, headed to Washington for talks at the White House about several unresolved and thorny issues in the U.S. exit strategy, particularly the transfer of power to a provisional Iraqi government to be concluded by July 1.

      The Iraqi council`s unanimous decision against the People`s Mujaheddin, or MEK, is a significant political and security gain for Iran and could marginalize the group or even eliminate it as an effective opposition movement. The MEK, which was supported by former president Saddam Hussein, has launched hundreds of attacks against Iran over the past two decades.

      The move also marks a turning point for U.S. policy. The future of the Iranian opposition group has been heatedly debated within the Bush administration. The MEK, which mixes Marxism and Islam, has been on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations since 1999, but some administration hawks had argued that the group could form the basis for an effort to pressure or change the regime in Tehran.

      The administration has been under mounting pressure for months from European and other allies to crack down on the MEK and treat it like a terrorist group, according to U.S. officials and European diplomats. The MEK, born in the 1960s to limit Western influence in Iran and now tied to anti-American attacks, is surrounded by U.S. troops, but it has continued anti-government broadcasts into Iran and other activities.

      Washington is prepared to allow the Iraqis to act against the MEK, U.S. officials said yesterday.

      The timing is interesting. The Iraqi council`s decision comes as Jordan`s King Abdullah has been quietly trying to mediate the hand-over of about 70 al Qaeda operatives held by Iran -- in exchange for action by the United States on the MEK.

      The move may also be linked to the Iraqi council`s efforts to improve relations with Iran, another predominantly Shiite Muslim country that shares Iraq`s longest border.

      Ahmed Chalabi, a leading council member with close ties to both the United States and Iran, proposed the resolution. A Shiite Muslim, he recently visited Iran, according to Iraqi sources. Most of the 24 Governing Council members have been to Iran in recent months.

      The MEK has been spurned by Iraqi Shiites, even though many of its members are Shiites, because Hussein used the Iranian group to help put down the Shiite uprising in southern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, according to U.S. officials. Thousands of Iraqis were killed.

      The move, which will assuage Iranian concerns, will deprive the MEK of its only direct access to Iran. There are now no major opposition groups operating on any of Iran`s borders.

      An unanswered question is what will happen to the MEK. The Iraqi council`s resolution calls for the closure of the MEK headquarters in Baghdad and a prohibition on its members` engaging in any political activities until their departure. It also calls for the seizure of all MEK funds and weapons, both of which will be turned over to a fund to compensate victims of Hussein`s regime.

      But the council did not discuss where the group would go. "It`s up to them," said Entifadh Qanbar, a senior official of Chalabi`s party, the Iraqi National Congress. "They can seek refuge in other places. We don`t care where they`re going to go."

      Qanbar said Iran had offered the MEK an amnesty. The United States, however, will not turn the MEK over to Iran, which is on the State Department`s list of state sponsors of terrorism.

      Several senior MEK officials fled to Europe shortly before the U.S. invasion. More than a dozen were arrested in France several months ago for plotting terrorist activities.

      "It`s the same problem as dealing with [former president] Charles Taylor in Liberia. These are really bad guys who have to be dealt with in a fair and transparent way that holds them to account for what they`ve done. But how that is carried out has yet to be worked out. . . . At the moment they`re confined to camps and not doing anyone any harm," a senior State Department official said yesterday.

      Iraqis denied that they were pressured by the United States to act. "The council based its decision on the black history of this terrorist organization and the crimes committed against our people and our neighbor," the council said in a statement yesterday.

      Chandrasekaran reported from Baghdad.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 11:07:05
      Beitrag Nr. 10.255 ()
      Ein neuer Saddam wird gesucht.

      washingtonpost.com
      One Iraqi`s Insights


      By David Ignatius

      Wednesday, December 10, 2003; Page A31


      LONDON -- Amid the confusing parade of Iraqi politicians vying for influence these days in Baghdad, a little-known figure named Ayad Allawi deserves a special hearing -- for the simple reason that he has been right about the big issues affecting postwar Iraq.

      Allawi has argued for more than a decade that a stable Iraq is possible only if most Iraqis believe they have a place in the new order. The only people he would exclude from this big tent are those who were directly involved in Saddam Hussein`s regime of torture and repression.

      This strategy of inclusion may seem obvious, but it was rejected in the early days of the U.S. occupation, with disastrous consequences. With Iraq now in disarray, Allawi, in a recent interview here, outlined his views about how to stabilize the country.

      Allawi is a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, chairing the committee that handles security issues. He previously headed an exile group called the Iraqi National Accord, but he`s much less well known in the West than his flamboyant fellow exile, Ahmed Chalabi.

      Where Chalabi was the Pentagon`s man, the burly, moon-faced Allawi has been described as an ally of the CIA and British intelligence. Though trained as a doctor, he spent much of the past two decades running intelligence operations against Saddam Hussein. His group failed in a 1996 CIA-backed military coup, but it maintained contacts with dissident Iraqi officers and helped persuade some units not to resist the U.S.-led invasion last March.

      Allawi has consistently urged the United States to work with honest military officers and civil servants from the old regime in the transition to a new Iraq. He told me in March 2002 that the United States needed to reassure Iraqis that it didn`t want to destroy the country, humiliate its army or punish ordinary Iraqis who cooperated with the Baath Party because they had no choice.

      That strategy was clearly correct, in hindsight. Unfortunately, it was abandoned when U.S. occupation chief L. Paul Bremer decided last May to disband the Iraqi army. This decision is now widely viewed as America`s biggest mistake in postwar planning.

      Allawi says he warned a meeting of top U.S. generals that disbanding the army would create a dangerous "vacuum" in the country. The generals seemed to agree, but soon after, Bremer decided that the army should be dissolved, apparently on the advice of Chalabi and others.

      The postwar power vacuum proved as dangerous as Allawi and others had feared. Foreign fighters slipped in across the open border, and in the chaos were able to set up safe houses and links with operatives from the old regime. Their network was bolstered by some of the cashiered Iraqi soldiers, who "started to organize themselves in clusters," Allawi says.

      Another unfortunate "twist," says Allawi, was that disbanding the army and the Baath Party destroyed two power centers for Iraq`s Sunni Muslim minority, and convinced many Sunnis they had no place in the new Iraq. They began to revolt in the now-infamous "Sunni Triangle" north and west of Baghdad. Asked to describe the enemy, Allawi frankly blames "our own creation of the problem, changing Iraqis to be against us."

      So how can the U.S.-led coalition rebuild trust and security in Iraq? Allawi urges the Bush administration to fix past mistakes and build strong, inclusive Iraqi institutions.

      The Iraqi army should be rebuilt quickly, to a force of up to 250,000, he contends. Officers from the old army should be vetted and retrained in Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan and perhaps Turkey. No members of the old Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard need apply, but most others would be welcome, he says.

      A new Iraq will need an intelligence service, and Allawi urges a force of several thousand people. The coalition should continue with its plans to train about 140,000 members of a new civil defense force to help police Iraqi cities, roads, bridges and pipelines. Within that force, Allawi wants a 700-man counterterrorism brigade recruited from the militias of the five leading political factions -- to draw the militias under the wing of a new Iraqi state.

      Allawi, a 58-year-old Shiite Muslim, says he has been working hard this past week to persuade the Shiite spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to drop his demand for early elections -- which he fears would only add to Iraq`s instability.

      Allawi has made his share of mistakes, and he`s better suited for life in the shadows than atop a political podium. But he got the big issues right, and he can help the Bush administration now as it struggles to fix the Iraq mess.

      davidignatius@washpost.com




      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 11:19:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10.256 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 11:21:06
      Beitrag Nr. 10.257 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 11:34:44
      Beitrag Nr. 10.258 ()
      Fair and Balanced™ Cartoons
      Ich glaube, ich muß mich mal beschweren, noch keine frischen Cartoons
      http://www.flu-ent.com/fairandbalanced.htm

      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 11:50:09
      Beitrag Nr. 10.259 ()
      Bush Makes Secret Trip To The Moon

      Conspiracy theorists claim the president was on a sound stage in New Mexico.
      Satire From… freepressed.com
      --------------------------------
      CAPTION: Bush described his trip to the moon as `friggin cool.

      Washington, D.C.-- Just two weeks after the Bush Administration first announced its “bold, visionary and completely original” plan to send a manned spacecraft to the moon, Americans woke up last Saturday morning to find that President George W. Bush had made a secret two and a half hour trip to the lunar surface.

      “This is George W. Bush, ‘Merica,” the 43rd President said as he perched on the stairwell that led to the frigid lunar landscape. “I’m on the moon. This is friggin’ cool.”

      Bush stopped on the last step before he touched the surface and with tears visible behind his helmet’s visor said “I’m takin’ one small step to prove that our space program can kick anybody else’s ass.”

      For the rest of his duration on the moon, President Bush romped on the surface, hitting a golf ball “because its cool to watch it float”, making “moon angels” by falling backwards on the satellite’s surface and jumping the moon rover over craters.

      With the president were two astronauts, a Halliburton Representative who tapped portions of the surface near the spacecraft to see if any oil could be found and thirteen members of the press, including Leslie Mulgroves from Fox News and friends.

      “The President’s creative insight is staggering. What other leader in our nation’s history could have ever conceived of such an idea? I think this proves the old saw that “Closer to God goes George W. Bush.”

      Indeed, a collective “Ahhhh” went up across the country, when the president looked out at the glowing emerald planet below him and said “I see you ‘Merica and you’re beautiful.”

      ---------------------------------

      CAPTION: Bush said it would be cool if he could spit on the Earth from here.
      It was shortly after his trip to Iraq on Thanksgiving Day that the President announced his plan to send a manned mission to the moon.

      "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth," Bush said.

      A hesitant hand went up in the back of the White House pressroom.

      “Excuse me Mr. President but didn’t John F. Kennedy say that,” Perry Stenger, Bloomberg News asked.

      “I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel here people,” Bush replied.

      When asked how much it would cost and why the President wanted to revive the moon program after 22 visits during the 1970’s, Bush answered “A lot and because it’s awesome.”

      He also wanted to build a moon base.

      “You know, something with a dome, green alien chicks and a secret passage way,” he said.
      After two and a half hours on the moon, the spacecraft loaded back up and headed home with a quick fly by the International Space Station so that Bush could show his ass to the Russians currently living on the base.

      ---------------------------------

      CAPTION: The American public is beginning to wonder if Bush really went to Iraq for Thanksgiving.

      Critics of the President accused the moon landing of being a PR stunt.

      “His approval rating is going into the shitter what do you expect,” said James Zogby of the Zogby Poll.

      Conspiracy theorists such as Terry Van Allen and Barla Collins who run the popular www.unfound.org website accused the President of faking the moon landing.

      “Look at the pictures of him on the moon. First, the wind is blowing the flag in the background. There’s no wind on the moon. Second, where are all of the stars? Third, if you look into the reflection on his helmet, you can see sound and stage people in the background,” Van Allen said.

      “How many times are people going to have to watch Capricorn One before they admit that the whole damn thing was staged. The president was on a stage that is hidden in Area 51 in the New Mexico desert,” said Barla Collins.

      Conspiracy theorists claim that this isn’t the first time that President Bush has staged or made up events such as the fake turkey that he held during his trip to Iraq, landing on the airplane carrier last May and the premise for the Iraq war.

      Contact freepressed@brentflynn.com to receive the weekly email edition of FreePressed.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 11:51:51
      Beitrag Nr. 10.260 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 11:58:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.261 ()
      John Chuckman: The Parable Of Samarra
      Wednesday, 10 December 2003, 1:21 pm
      Column: John Chuckman

      The Parable Of Samarra

      By John Chuckman
      December 9, 2003
      Front-page stories announced the greatest battle since the end of combat in Iraq with fifty-four insurgents killed and not an American soldier lost. We were given breathtaking details about two separate, coordinated attacks, the firing of rocket-propelled grenades at American vehicles, and the fact that many of the attackers wore Fedayeen militia uniforms associated with Saddam Hussein. Early reports even claimed eleven insurgents were captured.

      In addition to headlines, we had sources like CNN pouring on the infotainment-interviews and instant wisdom. I noticed on the Internet that the redoubtable Wolf Blitzer exchanged schoolboy fantasies with a CIA dropout in search of his fifteen minutes. Never mind whether the attack happened, America learned that it would represent new tactics by insurgents, massing large forces against an armored American column. Oh, that does sound ominous and impressive.

      Gradually, enough bits of information, including a story that it was actually an attempted heist of new Iraqi banknotes being delivered, raised serious questions over the battle. The idea of a heist made a little more sense than insurgents in uniform since Iraq under U.S. occupation is a country full of angry, unemployed people with streets too dangerous to walk at night.

      There were so many doubts, the kinds of clues and irregularities that make a good detective avoid accepting first appearances. Not a single American killed by two large forces firing at them? And you had to wonder what desperate man would come close enough to a 60-ton Abrams tank to be seen firing a rocket-grenade capable of nothing more than scratching its paint? And how about those guys, before and after the attack, running around occupied Iraq in uniform? Where were the captives?

      On the same day the Washington Post and other major American publications featured the dazzlingly fuzzy tale, a few sources like al Jazeera quoted the local hospital as having received the bodies of eight civilians, including a woman and a child, plus sixty more wounded by American fire. American tanks and other armored vehicles, said witnesses, had sprayed heavy fire recklessly over an urban area, including a pharmaceutical plant where at least one worker was killed

      We now have enough information to be sure there was no battle. Yes, there was plenty of shooting and destruction, but not a single dead insurgent has been produced by American authorities who worked tirelessly to get pictures of the blood-soaked corpses of Saddam Hussein`s sons quickly beamed around the world. Not a single militia uniform has been produced, nor any of the dozens of weapons necessarily left behind by dead insurgents dragged away by comrades.

      The reports of residents, reports from the hospital, and the blunt, published observations of at least one American soldier tell us there was only a big shoot-up by Americans, blasting away at anything that moved, shattering buildings and the people huddled inside and leaving the street littered with tank-crushed cars. Who knows, perhaps a landmine or gunshot somewhere triggered it all, and trigger-happy soldiers, angry about being in what they regard as a hellhole, let loose enough firepower to level a city block.

      It could be that American authorities actually believe there was a battle, with the dead and wounded having been dragged away by survivors. There is an irresistible tendency for people to create acceptable fantasies around the work they do, even when that work is killing.

      I think it unlikely a retraction is coming. With a number of senior military men quoted by name that first day on non-existent details, a retraction would be impossibly embarrassing. Has there been any retraction of the fantasy about nuclear and other deadly weapons that sent American armies hurtling into Iraq? Bush just stopped talking about weapons and started talking about democracy. Good stuff, democracy, and it`s hard to argue even with tongue-twisted platitudes praising its merits.

      America`s press will soon forget the Battle of Samarra, as it soon forgets everything from which most of the easily-squeezed juice has been consumed. I very much doubt Iraqis will forget it, certainly not the relatives, friends, and neighbors of those killed and mutilated by fear-crazed Americans rolling through their streets with terrible weapons at the ready.

      Perhaps the New York Times will do some digging, following its usual practice of joining the mob in its first bloody howls, and only later, when ardor has cooled, doing an investigation that keeps the paper technically accurate for the record. It`s a way of enjoying the best of both worlds, although generally the conclusions of its follow-up investigations are left ambiguous enough not to embarrass the establishment the paper serves.

      The war`s main goal - smashing Iraq and resurrecting it as a liberal democratic state - is also a fantasy, although one on a vastly greater scale. There is no historical authority whatever to support even the plausibility of this idea.

      I recently heard an American academic pontificating on the subject as though it were something one could study and be expert in, but it is not. Much like the numerous American experts in terror who make substantial livings giving scare-lectures to corporate leaders on expense accounts or Pentagon working lunches, this man is an expert in a subject at which it is virtually impossible to be expert.

      Terrorism is not a science, it is an opportunistic approach to hurting a militarily superior enemy, although it is clearly possible to put a lot of cumbersome words around the topic. The pseudo-science of smashing closed societies and rebuilding them as democracies is loaded with the same kind of coined, self-serving words that fill ephemeral, anecdotal books on psychology, management, and healthy living. The subjects are close kin to the junk science that clogs the arteries of America`s courts.

      In the isolated, paranoid, and money-drenched atmosphere of Washington, junk science is serious stuff. Bush, in making his foolish decision to invade Iraq, may be seen ultimately as the victim of well-paid quacks.

      Perhaps the only cases in history with superficial resemblance to what is intended for Iraq are those of Germany and Japan after World War II, but, in truth, there are almost no parallels here.

      Germany and Japan had suffered war with millions of casualties. In the massive, late bombing of Japan, before America resorted to atomic weapons, there were no primary or secondary targets left standing. What has been inflicted on Iraq is nothing quite so terrible. Japan or Germany was as close as you can get to being a tabula rasa.

      The successful conversions of Germany and Japan to liberal democracy occurred in the extraordinary context of the Cold War. The people of Germany and Japan were faced with the stark choice of joining one camp or the other. The correct choice, despite many qualms about America, was pretty clear with Stalin`s terrifying face glowering over the Soviet Union. Today, the United States is not viewed by the world as the alternative to a tyrannical, frightening Soviet Union; it is viewed as an arrogant, privileged land that does pretty much as it pleases.

      The case is even stronger than that because America today is so intimately associated with Israel. Even though Arab states are resigned to Israel`s existence, they can hardly be expected to embrace occupation and constant abuse. Moreover, parallels in the circumstances of occupied Palestinians to those of occupied Iraqis are unpleasantly close and appear to grow more so each day.

      Germany and Japan were both advanced countries, undoubtedly on the cusp of developing their own democratic institutions, Germany having already gained some experience between the world wars. Police states simply do not survive over the long term in advanced countries. Democracy comes precisely out of the overwhelming force of middle-class interests that flood an advanced economy.

      It is almost universally true that poorly-developed countries are not democracies. There are few enough institutions of any kind in such countries, and certainly none to sustain democracy. There is no balance of interests where there is a small privileged group and a great mass of poverty and ignorance. Purchased courts, purchased police, and laws written to favor the powerful are the rule. This kind of imbalance is felt even in the United States. In a poor country, its influence is decisive. Where such countries are officially designated as democracies, we typically find rigged elections.

      Germany and Japan were both old nations with strong identities. Iraq is an artificial construct of British imperialism dating only to the last century. It is composed of groups having little in common, having been held together only by the brute force of a dictator. Each of these groups is also subject to many external influences, a reflection of the arbitrary and recently-set boundaries in the region.

      There is also difficulty with the notion that you can have popular democracy in a place like contemporary Iraq and yet have a country friendly to American interests, especially as those interests are reflected in the activities of an uncompromising, combative, nuclear-armed Israel. Bush has achieved nothing in pushing Israel towards peace, so why expect favorable decisions from an Islamic population voting freely?

      In other places in the Middle East, like Egypt, America supports a combination of winked-at authoritarian government and substantial bribe-paying. Why does America support this if there are realistic alternatives? That was the situation that existed in Iraq until the Gulf War. The populace of Egypt, so far as we can understand in the absence of genuine measures of public opinion, is not one that would freely elect a government friendly to a number of American interests. The same is almost certainly true of Iraq.

      Is the U.S. likely to leave behind in Iraq either a highly unstable government, one whose quick collapse would bring civil war between the major groups, or a democratically-elected government, stable but hostile to American interests? These and so many other questions only show how little Bush thought before he reached for a gun.

      We are unlikely to learn the truth from officials about the Battle of Samarra, and so it is with the entire reckless adventure of invading Iraq. American troops are going to be in Iraq for a long time, and there is no reason to expect they are going to make any more friends for America than the boys doing the shooting in Samarra.

      ENDS

      Copyright (c) Scoop Media
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 12:01:11
      Beitrag Nr. 10.262 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 13:05:21
      Beitrag Nr. 10.263 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-conserva…
      NEWS ANALYSIS



      President`s Rebuke of Taiwan Stirs Alarm
      By Sonni Efron
      Times Staff Writer

      December 10, 2003

      WASHINGTON — To conservatives, it was a shocking scene. President Bush sat chatting chummily in the Oval Office on Tuesday with the premier of communist China and harshly rebuked the democratically elected leader of the United States` old friend and ally, Taiwan.

      "The only word I can use is `appalled,` " said John Tkacik, a China specialist at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a staunch administration supporter. "The spectacle of the American president who just gave such an eloquent speech in Whitehall barely three weeks ago, saying the global expansion of democracy is a pillar of American foreign policy…."

      His voice trailed off in disbelief. "This just simply belies that."

      Behind the jarring imagery, however, was a simple message. The Bush administration believes that it cannot afford a political crisis that could draw the United States into a war over Taiwan while it has its hands more than full with Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea.

      So the president expressed his opposition to Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian`s pledge to hold a March 20 referendum that China finds provocative.

      "We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo," Bush said. "And the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose."

      Translation: "The president`s top goal is preserving the peace in the Taiwan Strait," a senior administration official said. "We are in no way abandoning support for Taiwan`s democracy or for the spread of freedom."

      But to some Republicans, it appeared that a president from their party had done the unthinkable — siding with a communist leader against democratic Taiwan on a key issue: the island`s right to hold a referendum.

      Since Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist forces fled to the island in 1949, the U.S. has backed Taiwan politically and militarily against the Chinese mainland. In 1972, President Nixon changed that. But while the U.S. recognizes that Taiwan is part of "one China," Washington has always pledged to protect Taipei against mainland aggression.

      As Taiwan transformed itself from a harsh authoritarian regime to a vibrant democracy, many U.S. conservatives have resisted any move to marginalize the island in favor of the ever-more-powerful People`s Republic.

      Three key neoconservative intellectuals issued a blistering statement Tuesday calling the president`s words "a mistake" and accusing the U.S. government of opting "to at least partly appease Beijing." China has threatened Taiwan with war if the island declared independence.

      "Appeasement of a dictatorship simply invites further attempts at intimidation," wrote William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan, an influential foreign policy analyst, and Gary Schmitt, of the Project for the New American Century. "Standing with democratic Taiwan would secure stability in East Asia. Seeming to reward Beijing`s bullying will not."

      Some suspected that the Bush administration might have struck a deal with China, agreeing to pressure Taiwan in exchange for Chinese currency concessions or Beijing`s help in persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programs. A Bush official said any linkage with North Korea would be a "false equation."

      Others saw no evidence of any quid pro quo but plenty of indications that the administration is desperate to avert a crisis while U.S. military and diplomatic resources are painfully stretched by its other foreign entanglements.

      "Much as only Nixon could go to China, so too only a conservative Republican president could make this statement about Taiwan," said Bates Gill, a China specialist at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Being a Republican with strong conservative credentials, [Bush is] able to make these sorts of statements and probably get away with it."

      Bush`s carefully worded statements Tuesday did not alter U.S. policy, which is to not support Taiwanese independence and to insist that the China-Taiwan conflict be resolved peacefully, senior administration officials said. They also stressed that although Bush did not warn the Chinese leader in public not to menace Taiwan, that message was delivered sternly in private.

      "Let me tell you the president was very, very forceful on this issue," one of the officials said. "He made it clear [to visiting Premier Wen Jiabao that] if you force us to, if you try to use force or coercion against the Taiwanese, we`re going to be there."

      Bush had previously outraged the Chinese by saying the U.S. would do "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan if the mainland attacked.

      The administration`s decision to deliver a harsher message to Taiwan appeared to be based on comments by Chen over the weekend that he intended to hold a referendum despite U.S. opposition — though not one specifically dealing with independence. The Taiwanese leader`s latest, toned-down proposal is a referendum that would call on China to withdraw ballistic missiles aimed at the island and renounce the use of force against Taiwan.

      "The United States doesn`t want our referendum to affect the stability in the Taiwan Strait. We fully understand this," Taiwanese Foreign Minister Eugene Chien said Tuesday.

      He insisted that the referendum "will not involve the unification or independence issue, nor will it be aimed at changing the status quo." But there was no indication that Chen would cancel the referendum.

      One of Chen`s rivals was quick to seize on the disagreement between Washington and Taipei, portraying his party as a pro-American voice of reason.

      "We are not radicals," opposition leader James Soong, a vice presidential candidate for the 2004 elections, told the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei, the capital, according to Reuters. "We are not advocates for rapid change of status quo. We are pragmatic people."

      The domestic reaction to Bush`s remarks might prompt Chen to decide whether standing up against Washington and Beijing will help his reelection bid, Gill said.

      "He`s a very, very insightful and clever politician…. If he senses that his actions, and the loss of confidence that`s apparently being shown on the part of our president toward him, is damaging his standing … he will back off."



      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 13:09:57
      Beitrag Nr. 10.264 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-mosque10d…
      THE WORLD



      Iraqis See the Enemy Next Door
      Sunnis blame Shiites for a mosque attack, illustrating the sectarian tensions that threaten the nation`s future.
      By Patrick J. McDonnell
      Times Staff Writer

      December 10, 2003

      BAGHDAD — By Iraq`s standards, it wasn`t a huge attack: three dead, a mosque heavily damaged, a neighborhood shocked, mourning and recriminations all around.

      But the blast early Tuesday at the Ahbab Mustafa Mosque in a working-class enclave illustrated the sectarian tensions that pose perhaps the greatest barrier to Iraq`s halting march toward a peaceful future. The war in Iraq is not just about Iraqis versus Americans: Just as often it is about Iraqis against fellow Iraqis, each side acting on centuries of resentment and ill will.

      Although officials question what happened, Sunni Muslims living here immediately pointed the finger at the Shiite Muslim militias and political groups long repressed under Saddam Hussein.

      "It was the Shiites who did this," cried one distraught worshiper inside the grounds of the battered mosque, a Sunni house of worship in the midst of a largely Shiite district. "The Shiites are worse than the Jews!"

      Senior clerics attempted to calm down the hotheads — many brandishing AK-47 rifles or semiautomatic pistols and clearly itching for a fight. The holy men pointed out that whoever did this act respected no religion.

      Shiite neighbors tended to blame outside troublemakers — perhaps linked to the old regime. Whoever targeted the mosque was keen to foment unrest and distrust and undermine reforms that inevitably would give a greater share of power to the Shiites, Iraq`s long-suppressed majority, they said.

      "We must all live together as Iraqis," said Iftikhar Shaban, a Shiite teacher and mother of two.

      She stood on the roof of the nearby elementary school where, according to mosque worshipers, the attacker, or attackers, fired two rocket-propelled grenades into the mosque compound. The fire from the roof apparently ignited a barrel of fuel for the mosque generators, necessities in a country where power outages continue to be the norm.

      The fuel barrel exploded. Shards of twisted shrapnel littered the school grounds. A bull`s-eye with an RPG gouged a hole in the mosque wall, shattering the structure`s windows. The explosion ignited two cars that were inside the compound. Both were reduced to charred wrecks.

      "This was a criminal, cowardly act that does not reflect the will of Iraqis," said Shaban, off work for the day because the attack forced the shutdown of the school for its 700 students, both Sunni and Shiite.

      Seething Sunni anger at what many see as a Shiite power grab — in league with U.S. occupiers — is a driving factor in the anti-U.S. campaign in the so-called Sunni Triangle in central and western Iraq. Some say Sunni leaders would rather see continued U.S. occupation than have to suffer the humiliation of bowing to Shiite politicians and their ayatollahs after hundreds of years of Sunni Arab domination in this region.

      Rumors have even circulated indicating that Sunnis would be forced to relocate, victims of a new "ethnic cleansing" by any Shiite government.

      A recent series of attacks at Sunni mosques in Baghdad has reinforced a kind of collective paranoia. Shiite mosques also have been targeted, possibly in retaliation. Tuesday`s bombing seemed certain to worsen the cycle of revenge attacks, though moderate voices endeavored to calm emotions.

      "The people behind this [bombing] are aggressive ones who are trying to create some kind of sedition and division among Sunnis and Shiites," said Mohsen Abdel Hamid, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and head of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Shiite institution. "I can tell you they will not succeed."

      Iraqis have many reasons to hate — real and imagined — and a seemingly limitless supply of arms and explosives. Throw in a general lack of law and order and a surfeit of gunmen, saboteurs and unemployed young men with nothing to do and lots of resentment, and you have the volatile mix that is present-day Iraq.

      Bombs go off regularly. No one claims responsibility. No one ever seems to know who did it or why. People mourn, express outrage, then go on with their lives.

      Many Arab Sunnis feel they have been unfairly maligned as unyielding supporters of Saddam Hussein, himself an Arab Sunni, and therefore anxious to have the Baathists back. They too suffered under Hussein, the Sunnis often point out.

      Defiant Sunni worshipers here — many brandishing weapons, their faces wrapped in headscarves as they eyed passing vehicles warily — vowed to get back at their perceived enemies.

      "Who would do such a thing to a mosque?" said Saad Nayef, 20, a guard at the building who held his specially engraved AK-47 on the school roof, where he kept vigil. "We miss those who died, but they are martyrs. They are with God now."

      The dead were two of Nayef`s fellow volunteer guards, close friends, and the mosque`s muezzin, Abdul-Qudoos Dulaimi, known for his devotion to the Koran.

      The death toll would have been much higher, everyone said, if not for the fact that the attack happened an hour or so after the completion of the dawn prayer, typically attended by about 80 worshipers. The explosion also happened before the children arrived for school across the street.

      Religious strife and power politics could be part of the reason for the assault on the mosque. Police and U.S. authorities said it was far from clear that Shiite radicals were behind the strike in a neighborhood — Hurriya — that had been notable for its relative calm.

      "We were very surprised to see something like this here," said Lt. Col. Frank Sherman, whose armored battalion patrols the zone. "It`s been calm around here." The biggest worry, said Sherman, has been getting the sewer system up and running.

      Authorities questioned the story that two RPG rounds caused the extensive damage. Officials suspect that some kind of explosive may have been stored on the mosque grounds, or perhaps in one of the two cars that were shattered in the blast.

      By this theory, a grenade may have hit that cache and triggered a much larger explosion.

      Still, U.S. officials said the mosque was not a hotbed of anti-occupation sentiment — as some mosques have become — and the Army said it would meet with the imam and finance repairs.

      "We were making great progress down there," Sherman said. "We`ll help him rebuild and hopefully things will go on as they did before."

      Back at the mosque, volunteers shoveled twisted shards of metal and broken glass into a cart hauling away the debris.

      Some passersby lingered and stared. Others averted their eyes and moved on.

      *


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Special correspondents Suhail Ahmed and Salar Jaff contributed to this report.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 13:23:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.265 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan10…
      THE WORLD
      Die US-Army hat wieder ein Problem. Durch den Einsatz von unkontrolierbarem Bombardement und dem Töten von Zivilisten, werden sie immer mehr in die Rolle der Besatzer gedrängt.
      In Afganistan sind die Koalitionstruppen als Befreier begrüßt worden, haben aber von Anfang an den Fehler gemacht, sich mit teilweise den falschen Partnern verbündet zu haben.
      Das augenblickliche Handeln führt dazu, dass sie immer mehr in die Rolle kommen, die einmal die UDSSR eingenommen hat.
      Es ist bei der USA-Politik immer wieder das gleiche, auch wenn sie im Grunde etwas Gutes wollen, ereichen sie meist das Gegenteil durch die Arroganz ihres Handelns.
      Deutschland sollte aufpassen, dass es nicht in diesen Sog mit hineingezogen wird. Man fährt schon seit einiger Zeit eine strikte Abgrenzung gegenüber den amerikanischen Truppen.(verschiedene Organisationen)




      U.S. Troops Step Up Hunt for Insurgents in Afghanistan
      Meanwhile, the military says six children died in a raid, the second such mistake in a week.
      By Paul Watson
      Times Staff Writer

      December 10, 2003

      KABUL, Afghanistan — As hundreds of U.S. and Afghan soldiers hunted insurgents along the rugged border with Pakistan, the U.S. ambassador here predicted Tuesday that Taliban and other guerrillas would intensify their attacks in coming weeks.

      The troops, numbering about 2,000 and backed by air power, are carrying out what the military calls its largest operation in Afghanistan since the Taliban was overthrown two years ago. The mission, called Operation Avalanche, is aimed at smoking out Taliban fighters and their allies with multi-pronged assaults in eastern and southern Afghanistan before winter sets in.

      The operation, which began Dec. 2, is the latest in a string of military efforts along Afghanistan`s border with Pakistan, where guerrilla attacks have steadily increased.

      "Under the current circumstances, we want to take the war to them, to keep them busy defending and protecting themselves," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters here. "We are not losing. I`m saying that I anticipate that they are becoming more active against people who are coming here to help Afghanistan stand on its own feet."

      In an attack Monday, a Pakistani engineer was killed and his Afghan driver wounded on the highway between Kabul and the southern city of Kandahar, a showpiece reconstruction project largely funded by the U.S.

      Another Pakistani engineer was missing and two escaped after another recent attack in Ghazni province. Militants killed a French woman working for the United Nations last month.

      Delegates to the loya jirga, or grand assembly, that will decide Afghanistan`s new constitution have begun arriving in Kabul, the capital, and the U.S. military has said intelligence suggests that militants will launch attacks to disrupt the meeting.

      There is no firm starting date for the assembly, which was supposed to convene in October. Officials say it won`t begin as scheduled today.

      Privately, Afghan officials say there are various reasons for the delay, including disputes over the legitimacy of some of the 500 delegates and travel difficulties.

      Afghan President Hamid Karzai is also said to be using the delay to shore up support for the draft constitution, which proposes a strong presidency governing with a two-chamber parliament. Some opponents want a more powerful legislature or stronger guarantees that Afghanistan will be ruled by Islamic law.

      Asked about a report that U.S. and other diplomats, hoping to split the Afghan insurgency, have held secret meetings in Kabul with four commanders of renegade warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar`s militia, Khalilzad did not explicitly deny that such talks had taken place.

      "I have not met with them myself," he said.

      Hekmatyar`s Hizb-i-Islami, or Islamic Party, is on the State Department`s list of international terrorist organizations, and an executive order led Washington to declare Hekmatyar a global terrorist in February.

      Many Afghans regard Hekmatyar and his commanders as war criminals suspected in thousands of abductions, rapes and killings before the Taliban seized control in 1996.

      "There has to be, obviously, accountability with regard to crimes against humanity and crimes against the Afghan people and terror," the ambassador said. "But Afghans also have to reconcile and move forward.

      "You need accountability for past mistakes, but peace and progress also requires reconciliation at some point. There has to be a balance."

      Anger over civilian deaths in a series of U.S. airstrikes has added to a feeling of alienation in Pushtun areas, further complicating the debate over the draft constitution. Pushtuns are the country`s largest ethnic group.

      Today, the U.S. acknowledged it had killed six children in an attack aimed at a renegade Afghan commander, bringing to 15 the number of youths mistakenly killed in less than a week, Associated Press reported.

      The children died in a night raid Friday near the eastern city of Gardez, said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty. Warplanes and troops were involved in the attack, said Hilferty, who added that the U.S. "had no indication there were noncombatants" in the area.

      Nine children died Saturday when a U.S. warplane attacked the village of Hutala, in Ghazni province. U.S. officials said the target was a Taliban militant, Mullah Wazir, suspected of killing two foreign workers rebuilding the highway. But villagers said Wazir escaped, and Khalilzad backed away Tuesday from his statement that Wazir had been killed.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 13:26:37
      Beitrag Nr. 10.266 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-arar10d…
      COMMENTARY



      Delivered Into Hell by U.S. War on Terror
      By Maher Arar
      Maher Arar is back in Canada. He`s seeking a public investigation there and preparing a lawsuit, with the help of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, against the U.S. government.

      December 10, 2003

      I recently spent 10 1/2 months in a grave-sized cell in Syria, unsure why I was there, unsure how to get out. Fear paralyzed my wits when I needed them most. I was beaten and I was tortured and I was constantly scared. Every day I worried that I would never be released, that I would disappear into that concrete grave forever.

      Why was I being held? I still don`t really know. I am not a terrorist. I am not a member of Al Qaeda. I am a Syrian-born Canadian. A father and a husband. A telecommunications engineer. I have never been in trouble with the police and have always been a good citizen.

      My ordeal began on the afternoon of Sept. 26, 2002, when my flight back from a family vacation in Tunisia stopped over in New York and American immigration officials pulled me aside to answer a few questions. At first it was only an inconvenience — thorough airport security, post 9/11-style. But my questioners persisted. And when someone waved a copy of the 1997 lease for my Ottawa apartment, I was shocked and confused. What was going on here? Who gave them the lease and what was its significance to them? For the first time, I began to realize that the questioning was not simply routine.

      My interrogation in the United States took days. Shuttling in shackles among immigration officials, FBI agents and police officers, I asked repeatedly for a lawyer but was told that I didn`t have the right to one because I was not an American citizen. There were no phone calls home either.

      Only after days of often abusive, insulting, degrading questioning about whom I knew and what I was up to (besides computer work for my Boston-based employer) was I finally permitted to use a telephone.

      But still I couldn`t see the full picture. In the early hours of Oct. 8, 2002, I was formally notified that the U.S. government had classified information about me that it would not reveal — and it would be deporting me that very day, without a word to my family, to the long-forgotten place of my birth, Syria.

      To this day, unnamed American officials continue to allege that I have ties to Al Qaeda, although I have not seen the details and I have not been charged with a crime.

      I hadn`t been to Syria since moving to Canada with my family when I was 17. For half my life I have had no connection at all to that country. Yet I would surely be tortured, I told my New York captors, because I`m a Sunni Muslim; because my mother`s cousin had been accused of being in the Muslim Brotherhood and imprisoned for nine years; because I had left the country before undertaking my military service.

      My arguments were useless. Soon I was in a small private jet, chained and panic-stricken; then in a succession of cars in Jordan and Syria, blindfolded and beaten repeatedly; and finally placed in that shallow grave.

      I describe my cell in Syria as a grave because it was just 3 feet wide, 6 feet long, 7 feet high and unlit. While I was there I sometimes felt on the verge of death after beatings with a black electrical cable about two inches thick. They mostly aimed for my palms but sometimes missed and hit my wrists. Other times, I was left alone in a special "waiting room" within earshot of others` screams. At the end of the day, they would tell me that tomorrow would be worse. In those 10 1/2 months I lost about 40 pounds. I never saw, but only heard, the agony of my fellow prisoners. I was so scared I urinated on myself twice.

      I agreed to sign any document they put before me, even those I wasn`t allowed to read. And eventually I would say anything at all to avoid more torture. "Do you want me to use that?" someone would ask when I didn`t answer soon enough, pointing to a steel chair in the corner of the interrogation room.

      No, I told them, I did not want them to use that. And yes, I told them, I had been to Afghanistan. It wasn`t true, but it seemed important enough to my jailers. After a month, broken physically and mentally, I was also instructed to write these things down on a piece of paper next to other answers to other questions that they had gone ahead and penned on my behalf.

      After almost a year in hell, I was taken out of my cell, brought before a prosecutor and forced to sign a confession and stamp my fingerprint on it. After that, I was released and flown home.

      Today, the questions remain too numerous for me to list them all here.

      For starters, I want to know why the United States sent me to one of the seven countries that the Bush administration has designated a sponsor of state terrorism — and that President Bush singled out just last month as a country that tortures its own people. And I want to know why the Canadian government sent information on me to the United States and what the nature of that information was.

      I need to know why this happened to me. My priority is to clear my name, get to the bottom of the case and make sure this does not happen to anyone else again.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 13:50:25
      Beitrag Nr. 10.267 ()
      Fair and Balanced™ Cartoons
      Cartoon Archive
      122 New Cartoons Today, meine Beshwerde wurde angenommen und sofort 122 frische Cartoons geliefert, trotz der nachtschlafenden Zeit in USA:

      http://www.flu-ent.com/graveyard/20031210__122toons.htm



      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 14:04:48
      Beitrag Nr. 10.268 ()
      Dec 10, 4:23 AM EST

      Democrat Newsom Wins S.F. Mayoral Vote

      By LISA LEFF
      Associated Press Writer





      SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Democrat Gavin Newsom fended off a strong Green Party challenger in the race for mayor, becoming the youngest person to head the city in more than a century and preserving control of a post that Democrats couldn`t afford to lose.

      Newsom, a wealthy restaurateur backed by most of the city`s political establishment, received 118,651 votes, or 53 percent, in Tuesday`s runoff election. The Greens` Matt Gonzalez, a city supervisor and former public defender who surrounded himself with artists, activists and earnest volunteers, got 107,030 votes, or 47 percent.

      "This feels pretty good, doesn`t it?" Newsom said in his victory speech. "There`s a reason why we are the shining light for the rest of the state and the nation, and it`s the extraordinary diversity of San Francisco."

      As many as 20,000 absentee and provisional ballots remained to be counted, but Gonzalez conceded defeat after the election, which drew a 50 percent voter turnout and a record number of absentee ballots.

      At 36, Newsom is the youngest person to become mayor of San Francisco since 1897.

      Brown, 69, appointed Newsom to the city`s governing Board of Supervisors and personally invited former President Clinton to campaign for him when the race appeared tight. Brown exulted in his protege`s victory Tuesday night, then slipped away from the victory party before Newsom took the stage.

      In the end, Gonzalez`s insurgent campaign was overwhelmed by Newsom`s superior financial and organizational efforts. Newsom`s campaign collected more than $3.6 million for the race, outspending Gonzalez by more than 8-1 and overwhelming the Greens` volunteer-driven effort.

      Coming so soon after Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger`s election as governor, Newsom`s victory was a relief for Democrats who feared another embarrassing loss - this time in a city the party has controlled for decades.

      Still, with Democrats representing 54 percent of the registered voters and Greens 3 percent, Gonzalez said his 47 percent showing should send a message to the two major parties that voters will respond to candidates willing to take on the political establishment.

      "This city really represents the most American of American values," Gonzalez said in his concession speech. "I think the Democratic party and other parties ought to acknowledge that people voted for a candidate outside their party because that candidate represented their values."

      Gonzalez, a former Democrat who switched parties three years ago, fueled his campaign with the frustration felt by many hard-core liberals over the pro-development direction the city took under the autocratic Brown. Newsom portrayed Gonzalez as an ideologue lacking the will and practical ideas for creating jobs, housing and a renewed sense of well-being in a city hit hard after the dot-com bust.

      Gonzalez will continue to serve as president of the Board of Supervisors. While Newsom will name his own replacement and vowed Tuesday night to build bridges to the many Gonzalez voters, he may have to work hard as mayor to get majority support for his policies from the board, where most of the supervisors were solidly



      City and County of San Francisco
      Municipal Run-Off Election - Current Results
      December 9, 2003

      SUMMARY REPORT CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
      MUNICIPAL RUN-OFF ELECTION
      DECEMBER 9, 2003
      RUN DATE:12/09/03 09:41 PM

      VOTES PERCENT

      PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 562). . . . . 562 100.00
      REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 466,127
      BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . 226,523
      VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 48.60

      MAYOR
      VOTE FOR 1
      GAVIN NEWSOM . . . . . . . . . 118,651 52.57
      MATT GONZALEZ . . . . . . . . . 107,030 47.43
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 14:11:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.269 ()
      Buff Our S.F. Bubble, Mayor
      Attn: Mr. New Mayor Guy -- can you please do something about all the garbage and ennui?
      By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
      Wednesday, December 10, 2003
      ©2003 SF Gate

      URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/12/10/notes121003.DTL



      Congratulations, Mr. Candidate X! You won! You pulled it off even though many thought you were unlikable and smarmy and lopsided! You are the new mayor of San Francisco!

      And you`re so young! Wow. Proud indeed, you must be. And your parents. And your former college buds. And the nasty bouncer who still cards you at that dive bar in Burlingame.

      Why you would want this job in the first place, well, that is a rather different question.

      See, word has it that San Francisco`s in a bit of a shambles. A pale quivering scantily clad altar-boy ghost of what it once was. This is what they say.

      Just look around: Curmudgeons wander the streets mumbling grumpily about the sepia-toned glory and nice stiff top hats of the S.F. that was, quoting old Herb Caen columns with lots . . . of . . . ellipses . . . and references to dry martinis and Pacific Heights galas and long nights at Harry Denton`s.

      Tourists who flock in from parts unknown but apparently mostly from Asia and Germany for a stroll on the Golden Gate Bridge and a well-armored tour-bus ride through the Castro and maybe a large steamed overpriced crab at the Wharf are forced to step over 16 panhandlers and 17 syringes and something that looks like a puddle of human bodily fluid but could very well be the last remains of webvan.com.

      There are no trees. Why are there no trees in San Francisco, Mr. Mayor? Apparently, years back, the City`s tree-planting budget was slashed and the concrete-paving budget was quintupled and, hence, you can drive for five square miles in the Richmond and see nothing in the flora category, save for what some medical-marijuana entrepreneurs are growing in their hydroponic basements. We need more trees. Green is good for morale. Can you take care of this?

      Why did you want to be mayor, anyway? This is no city to be proud of right now. Or is it?

      Oh sure, we voted in record percentages against the lumbering onslaught of Ah-nuld, and we are an anti-BushCo stronghold and we love dog parks and lesbians and yoga and we still have a thing for leather and whips and street fairs, but that seems to be about it.

      New Yorkers will tell you we are still perpetually one step behind in terms of fashion and about 10 years behind in decent live theater and the arts, and they all wonder why the hell we can`t get more taxicabs along with an honest, authentic deli in a city that prides itself on gastronomic adventure.

      Chicagoans all laugh at our meager pizza offerings and dearth of bearable public transit, and marvel at our lack of actual seasons and warm summer nights and fireflies. Of course, you can`t really do much about the weather thing. Can you?

      See, the city is not the City. This is the general sentiment. We are adrift in a sea of ennui and monetary woes and far too many Baby Gaps per capita. These are some of the complaints.

      Of course, all major cities are suffering in BushCo`s budget-gutted, warmongering world, but S.F. feels like the hardest hit, if only because, given our radical sense of openness and awareness and record number of Nobel Laureates and gay leather shops, any decrease in our glitter reservoir is that much more profoundly felt.

      The massive implosion of the mixed-blessing dot-com era left a gaping hole where our pulse once was. The exodus of bands and artists at the same time left a gaping scar where our bitchin` dragon tattoo once was. The influx of badly dressed newbie dot-millionaires who are still gouging the housing market left a huge hole where tolerable condos for under $500K once were.

      We got problems. To stroll down historic Market St. from, say, 10th down to Fourth is to walk the gauntlet of misery and sadness and lots of screaming ranting wildly gesticulating hissing spitting psychotic gangrenous homelessness, with no end in sight. I don`t care how noble or altruistic or perky you are. That walk will hammer your soul and embitter your humanity as you scramble for some disinfectant.

      The City is filthy. Garbage everywhere. This is deeply embarrassing and obnoxious. Mysterious smells emanate, and not just from the guy with the massive teetering shopping cart of overstuffed garbage bags. Hell, L.A. is cleaner than this, and they have 11 million smog-choked people and enough fast-food strip malls to gag an ocean.

      Why do you want to be mayor of our fair, grungy, problematic city anyway? Much of BushCo`s `Murka hates S.F. Are you sufficiently aware of this? We are often loathed by the flyover states for our temperate weather and our astounding food and our funky clothes and our diversity and our general SUV abhorrence -- at least as compared with, say, Idaho.

      But mostly we are loathed, if my e-mail is any indication, because we are incredibly progressive, and proudly liberal, and openly sexually adventurous, and deeply articulate, and not at all tolerant of bogus ranting jingoism or sanctimonious religious dogma or Fox News.

      In short, we are disliked -- openly feared, even -- because we are different. Very different. We are a bubble. And we are proud of the fact that we are a bubble, no matter how many cracks and fissures and Starbucks logos appear in its walls.

      So, above all, Mr. Mayor, whatever else you may think your job entails, your real gig is to polish and hone our fine and tarnished bubble every damn day.

      To make it stronger, bolder, funkier, shinier, a goddamn gleaming astrodome of bookstores and hot sex and gourmet chocolates and intelligent political discussion and organic vegetables. Let`s get this straight, right now, from Day One.

      Your job is to make our glorious gemlike screwed-up bubble more able to deflect the slings and arrows of outrageous homophobic conservatism, while still remaining pliable enough to allow a kaleidoscope of viewpoints and ideologies and dog parks and sexual positions and gay rights legislation and sake-tasting shops.

      This is the real question, Mr. Mayor. Not merely how are you going to fix the troubling array of standard-issue socioeconomic and political woes of this fine city. Not merely how are you going to improve public transit and expand housing and pick up the garbage and plant more trees and get the homeless off the streets and create more parking spaces in the neighborhoods of certain columnists. Oh no.

      But much more important, how will you enhance, and promote, and buff, and proudly represent this crazy whack amazing progressive hippie burned-out coffee-shopped idiosyncratic proudly atypical spiritually incendiary American bubble? You must ask yourself this question right now, and from every day hence. Now, get to work.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.

      Subscribe to Mark`s deeply skewed, mostly legal Morning Fix newsletter.
      Mark Morford`s Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate, unless it appears on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which it never does. He also writes the Morning Fix, a deeply skewed thrice-weekly e-mail column and
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 14:30:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.270 ()








      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 14:41:48
      Beitrag Nr. 10.271 ()
      „Breaking the Silence“, habe ich in voller Länge vor zwei Tagen als Link eingestellt.

      Der Verrat an Afghanistan
      von John Pilger
      Guardian / ZNet 22.09.2003


      In einem langen Artikel im The Guardian Magazin beschreibt John Pilger Afghanistan seit der Befreiung von den Taliban, das er für seinen neuesten Dokumentarfilm „Breaking the Silence“, filmte. Abgesehen von symbolischen Freiheiten hat sich wenig verändert. Die von Amerika an die Macht gebrachten Kriegsherren sind nicht besser als die Taliban, sie terrorisieren die Bevölkerung und sorgen so dafür, dass 90 Prozent der Frauen in Afghanistan weiterhin unterdrückt werden und dass die Zusicherungen westlicher Wiederaufbauhilfe leere Versprechen bleiben.

      Auf dem auf die Anschläge vom 11. September 2001 folgenden Parteitag der britischen Labourpartei tat Premierminister Tony Blair folgenden bemerkenswerten Ausspruch: „Wir verpflichten uns dem afghanischen Volk gegenüber, dass wir es nicht im Stich lassen werden... Wenn das Taliban-Regime fällt, werden wir mit Euch arbeiten, um sicherzustellen, dass die Nachfolgeregierung eine breite Basis hat, dass sie alle ethnischen Gruppen umfasst und einen Weg weist aus der Armut, in der ihr elendiglich lebt. Er echote damit US-Präsident George Bush, der ein paar Tage zuvor gesagt hatte: „Das unterdrückte Volk von Afghanistan wird die Großzügigkeit Amerikas und seiner Verbündeten kennen lernen. Gleichzeitig mit dem Angriff auf militärische Ziele werden wir auch Nahrungsmittel, Medikamente und Vorräte für die hungernden und leidenden Männer, Frauen und Kinder Afghanistans abwerfen. Die US sind ein Freund des afghanischen Volkes.“

      Fast jedes Wort, das sie sagten, war falsch. Ihre Betroffenheitserklärungen waren grausame Täuschungen, die den Weg bereiteten für die Eroberung sowohl Afghanistans als auch Iraks. Da sich nun das wahre Gesicht der illegalen angloamerikanischen Besatzung Iraks zeigt, ist das vergessene Desaster in Afghanistan, der erste „Sieg“ im „Krieg gegen den Terror“, vielleicht ein noch schockierenderes Zeugnis der Macht.

      Es war mein erster Besuch. In meinem ganzen Leben, das ich an Orten der Umwälzung verbracht habe, habe ich so etwas noch nicht gesehen. Kabul ist wie ein Blick auf Dresden nach 1945, mit Konturen von Trümmern statt Straßen, wo Menschen in zusammengefallenen Gebäuden leben wie Erdbebenopfer, die auf Rettung warten. Sie haben weder Licht noch Heizung; ihre apokalyptischen Feuer brennen die ganze Nacht hindurch. Es gibt praktisch keine stehen gebliebene Wand, die keine Einschläge von Waffen fast jeden Kalibers hat. An den Kreisverkehren liegen Autos auf dem Dach. Die Strommasten für eine moderne Flotte von Trolleybussen sind verbogen wie Büroklammern. Die Busse sind übereinander gestapelt, erinnern an die Pyramiden aus Maschinen, die die roten Khmer in Kambodscha errichteten, um das „Jahr Null“ zu bezeichnen.

      In Afghanistan herrscht ein Gefühl von Jahr Null. Meine Schritte hallten durch den einst großartigen Dilkusha Palast, der 1910 nach einem Entwurf eines britischen Architekten gebaut wurde, dessen kreisförmige Treppen, korinthische Säulen und Steinfresken mit Doppeldeckern berühmt waren. Heute ist er eine Ruinenhöhle, aus der spindeldürre Kinder wie kleine Phantome auftauchen und vergilbte Postkarten des Palasts vor 30 Jahren anbieten: ein pompöses Gebäude am Ende von etwas, das wie eine Kopie des Mall aussieht, mit Flaggen und Bäumen. Unter dem Bogen der Treppe sind das Blut und Teile von zwei Leuten zu sehen, die am Tag zuvor von einer Bombe getötet wurden. Wer waren sie? Wer legte die Bombe? In einem Land im Bann von Kriegsherren, von denen viele beim Terror gemeinsame Sache machen, ist diese Frage an sich schon surreal.

      Einen Kilometer weiter bewegen sich Männer in Blau steif in einer Linie: Minenräumer. Minen liegen hier wie Abfall herum, und, Schätzungen zufolge, töten und verletzen jemand stündlich und täglich. Gegenüber dem ehemals größten Kino von Kabul, heute eine Jugendstilhülle, liegt ein belebter Kreisverkehr mit Postern, die davor warnen, dass in der Umgebung nicht explodierte Streubomben„ „gelb und aus den USA“ herumliegen. Hier spielen Kinder, jagen sich gegenseitig in den Schatten. Ein Junge im Teenageralter mit einem Stumpf, und der nur noch einen Teil seines Gesichts hat, beobachtet sie. Auf dem Land verwechseln die Leute die Streubombenbehälter immer noch mit den gelben Paketen der Nothilfe, die von den amerikanischen Flugzeugen vor zwei Jahren, während des Krieges, abgeworfen wurden, nachdem Bush verhindert hatte, dass die internationalen Hilfskonvois von Pakistan über die Grenze kamen.

      Seit dem 7. Oktober 2001 wurden über zehn Milliarden US-Dollar für Afghanistan ausgegeben, das meiste davon von den US. Über 80 Prozent davon wurden für die Bombardierung des Landes und die Bezahlung der Kriegsherren ausgegeben, die ehemaligen Mudschaheddin, die sich den Namen “Nordallianz” gaben. Washington gab jedem Kriegsherren zigtausende Dollars in bar und lastwagenweise Waffen. „Wir versuchten, wirklich alle Kommandanten zu erreichen“, sagte ein CIA-Beamter dem Wall Street Journal während des Krieges. In anderen Worten, sie bestachen sie, damit sie untereinander zu kämpfen aufhörten und die Taliban bekämpften.

      Das waren die gleichen Kriegsherren, die 1989 nach dem Abzug der Russen um die Kontrolle über Kabul kämpften, dabei die Stadt zu Staub machten und 50000 Menschen töteten, die Hälfte davon, laut Human Rights Watch, 1994. Dank der Amerikaner wurde die tatsächliche Kontrolle Afghanistans zumeist an die gleichen Mafiosi und ihre Privatarmeen abgetreten, die nun mittels Angst und Erpressung und die Monopolisierung des Opiumhandels regieren, der Britannien mit 90 Prozent des dort auf den Straßen verkauften Heroins versorgt. Die post-Taliban-Regierung ist nur eine Fassade; sie hat kein Geld und ihre Macht reicht kaum bis zu den Toren Kabuls, trotz der demokratischen Ambitionen wie die für nächstes Jahr geplanten Wahlen. Omar Zakhilwal, ein Beamter des Landwirtschaftsministeriums, erzählte mir, dass weniger als 20 Prozent der Hilfe für Afghanistan an die Regierung ginge. „Wir haben nicht einmal genug Geld, um die Löhne bezahlen, geschweige denn den Wiederaufbau zu planen”, sagte er. Präsident Hamid Karzai ist ein Strohmann Washingtons, der nirgends hingeht ohne sein Aufgebot an Leibwächtern aus US-Spezialtruppen.

      Human Rights Watch veröffentlichte eine Serie außerordentlicher Berichte, den letzten im Juli, in denen Gräueltaten dokumentiert sind, „die von Bewaffneten und Kriegsherren gegangen werden, die von den Vereinigten Staaten und ihren Koalitionspartnern nach dem Sturz der Taliban 2001 an die Macht gebracht wurden“ und die „im Grunde genommen das Land unter ihre Macht gebracht haben“. Der Bericht beschreibt Armee und Polizeitruppen, die von den Kriegsherren kontrolliert werden, die ungestraft Dorfbewohner kidnappen und in inoffiziellen Gefängnissen als Geiseln gefangen halten, weit verbreitete Vergewaltigungen von Frauen, Mädchen und Jungen, routinemäßige Erpressungen, Raubüberfälle und willkürliche Morde. Mädchenschulen werden niedergebrannt. „Da es die Soldaten auf Frauen und Mädchen abgesehen haben”, steht in dem Bericht zu lesen, „bleiben viele von ihnen zuhause und können deshalb nicht zu Schule [oder] zum Arbeiten gehen.“

      In Herat zum Beispiel, im Westen des Landes, werden Frauen verhaftet, wenn sie Auto fahren. Sie dürfen nicht mit einem nicht zur Verwandtschaft gehörenden Mann fahren, nicht einmal mit einem nicht verwandten Taxifahrer. Wenn sie erwischt werden, werden sie einem “Keuschheitstest” unterzogen. Dadurch werden kostbare medizinische Dienstleistungen verschwendet, „zu denen Frauen und Mädchen“, gemäß Human Rights Watch, „speziell in Herat, praktisch keinen Zugang haben, wo weniger als ein Prozent der Frauen mit Hilfe einer ausgebildeten Person entbinden.“ Die Sterblichkeitsrate für Mütter während der Geburt ist laut UNICEF die höchste in der Welt. Herat wird von dem Kriegsherrn Ismail Khan regiert, den US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld als “angenehmen... aufmerksamen, bedächtigen und selbstbewussten Mann“ empfahl.

      “Das letzte Mal, als wir uns in diesem Raum trafen”, sagte Bush in seiner Rede zur Lage der Nation letztes Jahr, “waren die Mütter und Töchter Afghanistans Gefangene in ihrem eigenen Haus, denen es verboten war, zu arbeiten oder zur Schule zu gehen. Heute sind die Frauen frei und Teil der neuen Regierung Afghanistans. Wir heißen die neue Frauenministerin, Dr. Sima Samar, willkommen.“ Eine zierliche Frau mittleren Alters mit Kopftuch stand auf, um den inszenierten Beifall entgegen zu nehmen. Samar, eine Ärztin, die unter den Taliban die Behandlung von Frauen nicht verweigerte, ist ein wirkliches Symbol des Widerstands. Ihre Aneignung durch den salbungsvollen Bush war nur von kurzer Dauer. Im Dezember 2001 nahm Samar auf der von Washington gesponserten “Friedenskonferenz” in Bonn teil, bei der Karzai als Präsident eingesetzt wurde und drei der brutalsten Kriegsherren als Vizepräsidenten. (General Rashid Dostum, der der Folter und Abschlachtung von Gefangenen beschuldigt wird, ist der derzeitige Verteidigungsminister.) Samar war eine von zwei Frauen in Karzais Kabinett.

      Kaum war der Beifall im Kongress verklungen, da wurde Samar mit einer falschen Anklage wegen Blasphemie verunglimpft und aus dem Kabinett vertrieben. Die Kriegsherren, die sich von den Taliban nur in ihrer Stammestreue und religiösen Frömmeleien unterscheiden, tolerierten nicht einmal ein Zeichen weiblicher Emanzipation.

      Heute lebt Samar in ständiger Angst um ihr Leben. Sie hat nun zwei Furcht erregende Leibwächter mit Schnellfeuerwaffen. Einen vor ihrem Büro, den anderen vor ihrem Haustor. Sie bewegt sich in einem Wagen mit verdunkelten Scheiben. “In den vergangenen 23 Jahren habe ich mich zwar nicht sicher gefühlt”, erzählt sie mir, “aber ich musste mich nie verstecken oder bewaffnete Leibwächtern dabei haben, so wie jetzt... Offiziell gibt es kein Gesetz mehr, das den Frauen verbietet, zur Schule oder zum Arbeiten zu gehen, es gibt kein Gesetz mehr, das eine bestimmte Kleidung vorschreibt. Aber in Wirklichkeit waren die Frauen auf dem Land selbst unter den Taliban nicht solchem Druck ausgesetzt wie heute.”

      Die Apartheid mag nun laut Gesetz beendet sein, aber für mehr als 90 Prozent der Frauen Afghanistans sind diese „Reformen” – wie die Einrichtung eines Frauenministeriums in Kabul – wenig mehr als eine Formsache. Die Burka ist immer noch überall zu sehen. Und wie Samar sagt, das Elend der Frauen auf dem Land ist heute oft schlimmer als vorher, da die ultra-puritanischen Taliban Vergewaltigung, Mord und Banditentum hart bestraften. Im Gegensatz zu heute konnte man sich im größten Teil des Landes sicher bewegen.

      In einer ausgebombten Schuhfabrik in West-Kabul fand ich die Bewohner zweier Dörfer eng zusammengedrängt auf den offenen Stockwerken, ohne Licht, mit einem tröpfelnden Wasserhahn. Kleine Kinder hockten auf abbröckelnden Brüstungen: tags zuvor war ein Kind herunter gefallen und gestorben, an dem Tag, an dem ich kam, fiel ein anderes Kind herunter und wurde schwer verletzt. Eine Mahlzeit besteht für sie aus in Tee getunktem Brot. Ihre riesigen starren Augen sind die Augen Schrecken erfüllter Flüchtlinge. Sie waren hierher geflohen, erklärten sie, da die Kriegsherren sie regelmäßig ausraubten und ihre Frauen und Töchter und Söhne entführten, die sie dann vergewaltigten und ihnen gegen Lösegeld wieder überließen.

      „Unter den Taliban lebten wir in einem Friedhof, aber wir waren sicher“, erzählte mir Marina, eine führende Aktivistin. „Einige Leute sagen sogar, dass es ihnen besser ging. Das zeigt, wie verzweifelt die Situation heute ist. Die Gesetze mögen sich geändert haben, aber Frauen trauen sich nicht, ohne Burka aus dem Haus zu gehen, die wir auch zu unserem eigenen Schutz tragen.“

      Marina ist ein führendes Mitglied von Rawa, der Revolutionären Frauenorganisation von Afghanistan, einer heroischen Organisation, die seit Jahren versucht, die Welt auf das Leiden der Frauen in Afghanistan aufmerksam zu machen. Die Frauen von RAWA reisten heimlich durch das Land, mit unter der Burka versteckten Kameras. Sie filmten eine Hinrichtung durch die Taliban und andere Missstände und schmuggelten die Videos in den Westen. „Wir gaben sie an verschiedene Medien“, erzählt Marina. „Reuters, ABC Australia, zum Beispiel, und sie sagten, ja, das ist sehr schön, aber wir können es nicht zeigen, weil es zu schockierend ist für die Leute im Westen.“ Die Hinrichtung wurde schließlich in einer Dokumentarsendung im britischen Channel 4 gezeigt.

      Das war vor dem 11. September 2001, als Bush und die US-Medien das Thema Frauen in Afghanistan entdeckten. Marina sagt, dass sich das derzeitige Schweigen im Westen über die grauenhafte Natur des vom Westen unterstützten Regimes der Kriegsherren in nichts unterscheide. Wir trafen uns heimlich und sie war verschleiert, um unerkannt zu bleiben. Marina ist nicht ihr richtiger Name.

      „Zwei Mädchen, die ohne Burka zur Schule gingen, wurden getötet und ihre Leichen vor ihre Häuser gelegt“, erzählte Marina. „Vergangenen Monat sprangen 35 Frauen mit ihren Kindern in einen Fluss und starben, nur um sich vor Kommandeuren auf Vergewaltigungstour zu retten. Das ist Afghanistan heute, die Taliban und die Kriegsherren der Nordallianz sind zwei Seiten derselben Münze. Für Amerika ist das eine Frankensteingeschichte, - man kreiert ein Monster und das Monster wendet sich gegen einen. Hätte Amerika nicht, während der russischen Invasion, diese Kriegsherren aufgebaut, Osama bin Laden und all die fundamentalistischen Kräfte in Afghanistan, hätten sie nicht am 11. September 2001 den Meister angegriffen.“

      Afghanistans Tragödie ist beispielhaft für die Maxime westlicher Macht, dass Länder des Südens ausschließlich nach ihrer Nützlichkeit für „uns“ betrachtet und behandelt werden. Die dafür nötige Rücksichtslosigkeit und Heuchelei haben der modernen Geschichte Afghanistans ihren Stempel aufgeprägt. Eines der am besten gehüteten Geheimnisse des Kalten Krieges war die Zusammenarbeit der USA und Britanniens mit den Kriegsherren, den Mudschaheddin, und die entscheidende Rolle, die sie bei der Anstachelung des Dschihad spielten, der die Taliban, al-Qaeda und den 11. September hervorbrachte.

      „Gemäß offizieller Geschichtsschreibung“, gab Zbigniew Brzezinski, Sicherheitsberater von US-Präsident Jimmy Carter, in einem Interview 1998 zu, „begann die Unterstützung der Mudschaheddin durch den CIA im Jahr 1980, das heißt, nachdem die sowjetische Armee in Afghanistan einmarschierte... Aber die Wirklichkeit, bis heute streng geheim, sieht ganz anders aus.“ Auf Drängen Brzezinskis gab Carter im Juli 1979 500 Millionen US-Dollar für den Aufbau einer im Grunde genommen Terroristenorganisation frei. Das Ziel war, Moskau, das damals zutiefst besorgt war über die Ausbreitung des islamischen Fundamentalismus in den zentralasiatischen Sowjetrepubliken, in die „Falle“ von Afghanistan, eine Quelle dieses schädlichen Einflusses, zu locken.

      Über 17 Jahre hinweg pumpte Washington vier Milliarden US-Dollar in die Taschen einiger der brutalsten Männer der Welt - mit dem Ziel, die Sowjetunion in einem sinnlosen Krieg zu erschöpfen und schließlich zu zerstören. Einer von ihnen, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, ein vom CIA besonderes bevorzugter Kriegsherr, erhielt Millionen von Dollars. Seine Spezialität war der Handel mit Opium und den Frauen, die sich weigerten, den Schleier zu tragen, Säure ins Gesicht zu schütten. 1994 stimmte er zu, die Angriffe auf Kabul zu stoppen, unter der Bedingung, dass er Premierminister würde, – was er dann auch wurde.

      Acht Jahre zuvor unterstützte CIA-Direktor William Casey einen Vorschlag von Pakistans Geheimdienst, dem ISI, von überall auf der Welt Leute für die Teilnahme am afghanischen Dschihad zu rekrutieren. Zwischen 1986 und 1992 wurden mehr als 100000 militante Islamisten in Pakistan ausgebildet, in Lagern, die vom CIA und Britanniens MI6 überwacht wurden, wo die britische SAS zukünftige al-Qaeda- und Talibankämpfer in der Herstellung von Bomben und anderen schwarzen Künsten trainierten. Die Anführer wurden in einem Lager des CIA in Virginia ausgebildet. Das Unternehmen wurde Operation Zyklon genannt und dauerte bis lange nach dem Rückzug der Sowjets 1989 an.

      „Ich gestehe, dass [Länder] Figuren auf einem Schachbrett sind“, sagte Lord Curzon, britischer Vizekönig in Indien 1898, „auf dem ein großes Spiel um die Beherrschung der Welt gespielt wird.” Brzezinski, Berater mehrerer Präsidenten und ein von der Bush-Gang bewunderter Guru, hat praktisch die gleichen Worte benützt. In seinem Buch The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives schreibt er, dass der Schlüssel zur Beherrschung der Welt in Zentralasien mit seiner strategischen Position zwischen rivalisierenden Mächten und seinem ungeheuren Reichtum an Öl und Gas liegt. „Um es in Worte zu kleiden, die an das brutalere Zeitalter alter Empires erinnern“, schreibt er, einer „der großen Imperative imperialer Geostrategie“ ist, „die Barbaren davon abzuhalten, sich zusammen zu tun“.

      Die Reste der Sowjetunion betrachtend, die er zerstören half, sinnierte der Guru mehr als einmal vor sich hin: Was soll’s, wenn all dies „ein paar aufgehetzte Moslems“ hervorgebracht hat? Am 11. September 2001 gaben „ein paar aufgehetzte Moslems“ die Antwort. In einem Interview, das ich kürzlich mit Brzezinski in Washington führte, stritt er vehement ab, dass seine Strategie das Entstehen von al-Qaeda beschleunigt hat: für den Terrorismus machte er die Russen verantwortlich.

      Als die Sowjetunion schließlich zusammenbrach, wurde das Schachbrett an die Clinton-Regierung weitergereicht. Die jüngste Variante der Mudschaheddin, die Taliban, regierten nun in Afghanistan. 1997 wurden die Führer der Taliban in Washington und Houston, Texas von Beamten des US-Außenministeriums und Managern der Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL) diskret empfangen. In Houston wurden sie üppig bewirtet mit Dinnerparties in luxuriösen Häusern. Sie baten darum, zum Einkaufen zu Walmart gefahren und zu Touristenattraktionen geflogen zu werden, einschließlich des Kennedy-Raumfahrtzentrums in Florida und nach Mount Rushmore in Süd-Dakota, wo sie die in die Felsen gehauenen Gesichter amerikanischer Präsidenten betrachteten. Das Wall Street Journal, Bulletin der US-Macht, schrieb überschwänglich: “Die Taliban sind die Akteure, die, zu diesem Zeitpunkt in der Geschichte, am ehesten Frieden in Afghanistan erreichen können.“

      Im Januar 1997 teilte ein Beamter des Außenministeriums Journalisten in einem vertraulichen Gespräch mit, dass man hoffe, Afghanistan würde ein Ölprotektorat werden, „wie Saudi-Arabien“. Er wurde darauf hingewiesen, dass Saudi-Arabien kein demokratischer Staat sei und Frauen verfolge. „Damit können wir leben“, sagte er.

      Das Ziel Amerikas war nun die Verwirklichung eines 60 Jahre alten „Traums”, des Baus einer Pipeline vom ehemals sowjetischen Kaspischen Meer via Afghanistan zu einem Tiefseehafen. Den Taliban bot man 15 Cent pro 1000 Kubikfuß Gas, die durch Afghanistan flossen. Auch wenn dies die Jahre der Clinton-Regierung waren, wurden die Deals von der „Öl- und Gas-Junta“ vorangetrieben, die bald schon George W Bushs Regime beherrschen sollte. Zu ihr gehörten ehemalige Mitglieder des Kabinetts von US-Präsident George Bush Senior, wie der derzeitige US-Vizepräsident Dick Cheney, der neun Ölfirmen repräsentiert, und Condoleezza Rice, heute nationale Sicherheitsberaterin, damals eine der Vorsitzenden von Chevron-Texaco, mit Spezialgebiet Pakistan und Zentralasien.

      Wenn man noch weiter nachforscht, findet man Bush Senior als bezahlten Berater der riesigen Carlyle Gruppe, deren 164 Unternehmen auf Öl, Gas, Pipelines und Waffen spezialisiert sind. Zu seinen Kunden gehört eine sehr, sehr reiche Saudi-Familie, die Bin Ladens. (Die Familie Bin Laden durfte die USA innerhalb weniger Tage nach den Anschlägen vom 11. September unter höchster Geheimhaltung verlassen.)

      Der „Traum“ von der Pipeline verblasste, als zwei US-Botschaften in Ostafrika bombardiert wurden und al-Qaeda dafür verantwortlich gemacht und die Verbindung zu Afghanistan hergestellt wurde. Die Taliban waren nicht länger nützlich, sie waren eine Blamage und überflüssig. Im Oktober 2001 bombardierten die Amerikaner ihre alten Freunde, die Kriegsherren, oder „Nordallianz“, zurück an die Macht. Heute, nachdem Afghanistan „befreit“ ist, geht es mit der Pipeline endlich voran, überwacht vom US-Botschafter in Afghanistan, John J Maresca, ehemals Unocal.

      Seit die USA die Taliban von der Macht entfernten, haben sie in den neun ehemaligen zentralasiatischen Ländern, die Afghanistans ressourcenreiche Nachbarn darstellen, 13 Stützpunkte eingerichtet. Überall auf der Welt sind die Amerikaner nun an den Toren zu allen wichtigen Quellen fossiler Brennstoffe militärisch anwesend. Lord Curzon würde dieses große Spiel nie wieder erkennen. Das ist, was das US Space Command (US-Weltraumkommando) „full spectrum dominance“ (Vorherrschaft über das gesamte Spektrum; d. Ü.) nennt.

      Von dem riesigen, von den Sowjets gebauten Stützpunkt in Bagram in der Nähe Kabuls aus kontrollieren die USA die Landroute zu den Reichtümern des Kaspischen Beckens. Aber wie bei der anderen Eroberung, Irak, läuft nicht alles reibungslos. „Jedes Mal, wenn wir uns vom Stützpunkt entfernen, werden wir beschossen“, sagt Oberst Rod Davis. „Für uns ist das dort draußen eine Kampfzone.“

      Ich sagte zu ihm: „Aber Präsident Bush sagt, sie hätten Afghanistan befreit. Warum sollten die Leute auf sie schießen?”

      „Es gibt überall feindliche Elemente, mein Freund.“

      „Ist das überraschend, wenn man mörderische Kriegsherren unterstützt?“, antwortete ich.

      „Wir nennen sie Regionalgouverneure.” (Weil „Regionalgouverneure”, Kriegsherren vom Schlag eines Ismail Khan in Herat als Teil von Karzais Nationalregierung angesehen werden – keine einfache Zusammensetzung. Karzai bat Khan, Millionen Dollar Zollabgaben herauszugeben.)

      Der Krieg, der die Taliban vertrieb, hat nie aufgehört. Zehntausend US-Soldaten sind dort stationiert; sie bewegen sich in ihren Kampfhubschraubern und Humvees, sprengen in den Bergen Höhlen oder beschießen ein Dorf, normalerweise im Südosten. Im Herzland der Paschtunen und an der Grenze zu Pakistan kommen die Taliban allmählich wieder zurück. Es gibt keine unabhängige Information über das Ausmaß des Krieges. US-Sprecher wie Oberst Davis sind die Quellen von Nachrichten, die berichten, dass „50 Talibankämpfer von US-Kräften getötet wurden”. Afghanistan ist nun so gefährlich, dass es für Reporter praktisch unmöglich ist, etwas zu recherchieren.

      Das Zentrum der US-Operationen ist nun das Gefangenenlager („holding facility“) in Bagram, wohin verdächtige Personen gebracht und verhört werden. Zwei ehemalige Gefangene, Abdul Jabar und Hakkim Shah, berichteten der New York Times im März, wie sicherlich 100 Gefangene „gezwungen wurden, Tag und Nacht stundenlang unbeweglich zu stehen, mit Kapuzen über dem Kopf, die hoch erhobenen Armen an die Decke gekettet und die Füße gefesselt.“ Von hier aus werden viele in das Konzentrationslager in Guantanamo Bay verschifft.

      Den Gefangenen werden alle Rechte verwehrt. Das Rote Kreuz durfte nur einen Teil der „holding facility“ inspizieren, Amnesty wurde der Zutritt überhaupt verweigert. Im April letzten Jahres „verschwand“ ein Kabuler Taxifahrer, Wasir Mohammad, dessen Familie ich interviewte, in Bagram, nachdem er sich an einer Straßensperre über den Verbleib eines Freundes erkundigt hatte, der verhaftet worden war. Der Freund wurde seitdem wieder freigelassen, aber Mohammad befindet sich nun in einem Käfig in Guantanamo Bay. Ein ehemaliger Innenminister aus Karzais Regierung sagte mir, dass Mohammad zur falschen Zeit am falschen Ort war: „Er ist unschuldig.“ Außerdem war er bekannt dafür, dass er sich den Taliban widersetzt hatte. Möglicherweise wurden viele der Gefangenen in Bagram und Guantanamo Bay wegen der Belohnung, die die Amerikaner für verdächtige Personen bezahlen, entführt.

      Warum, fragte ich Oberst Davis, werden den Leuten in der „holding facility“ die grundlegenden Rechte verweigert, die er als von einer fremden Armee gefangener Amerikaner erwarten würde. Seine Antwort war: „Das Problem der Kriegsgefangenen ist entweder ein Problem der extremen Linken oder Rechten, je nach Perspektive.“ Das ist die kafkaeske Welt, die Bushs Amerika den jüngst seinem Imperium hinzugefügten Gebieten, realen und virtuellen, übergestülpt hat, die sich auf dem neuen Schutt erheben an Orten, wo menschliches Leben nicht den gleichen Wert hat wie das derjenigen, die in Ground Zero in New York umkamen. Einer dieser Orte ist das Dorf Bibi Mahru, das vor fast zwei Jahren während des Krieges von einer amerikanischen F16 angegriffen wurde. Der Pilot warf eine 500 kg MK82 “Präzisions”bombe auf ein Haus, aus Lehm und Steinen gebaut, in dem Orifa und ihr Ehemann, Gul Ahmed, ein Teppichweber, lebten. Die Bombe tötete alle außer Orifa und einem Sohn – acht Mitglieder ihrer Familie, einschließlich sechs Kinder. Zwei Kinder im Nachbarhaus wurden ebenfalls getötet.

      Kummer und Zorn ins Gesicht geschrieben, erzählte mir Orifa, wie die Körper vor der Moschee aufgebahrt wurden, in welch schrecklichem Zustand sie sie fand. Sie verbrachte den Nachmittag damit, die Körperteile aufzusammeln, „dann in Säcke zu packen und sie mit Namen zu versehen, damit sie später beerdigt werden konnten.“ Sie erzählte, dass eine Gruppe von elf Amerikanern kam und den Krater untersuchte, wo ihr Haus gestanden hatte. Sie notierten die Nummern auf dem Schrapnell und jeder einzelne interviewte sie. Der Übersetzer gab ihr einen Umschlag mit 15 Dollar in Eindollarnoten. Später wurde sie von Rita Lasar, einer New Yorkerin, die ihren Bruder in den Zwillingstürmen verloren hatte und nach Afghanistan gekommen war, um gegen die Bombardierungen zu protestieren und die Opfer zu trösten, in die US-Botschaft nach Kabul mitgenommen. Als Orifa versuchte, durch das Tor der Botschaft einen Brief abzugeben, sagten sie zu ihr: „Hau ab, alte Bettlerin.“

      Im Mai letzten Jahres veröffentlichte der Guardian das Ergebnis einer Untersuchung von Jonathan Steele. Er kam zu dem Schluss, dass wahrscheinlich, zusätzlich zu den bis zu 8000 Afghanen, die durch amerikanische Bomben getötet wurden, bestimmt 20000 Menschen mehr an den indirekten Folgen von Bushs Invasion gestorben sind, eingeschlossen derjenigen, die ihre Dörfer verließen und denen mitten in einer Dürreperiode Katastrophenhilfe verweigert wurde. In all den großen humanitären Krisen der letzten Jahre wurde keinem Land weniger geholfen als Afghanistan. Bosnien, das nur ein Viertel der Bevölkerung Afghanistans hat, erhielt 356 US-Dollar pro Person; Afghanistan bekommt 42 US-Dollar pro Person. Nur drei Prozent aller internationalen Hilfe für Afghanistan gehen in den Wiederaufbau, die von den US angeführte militärische „Koalition“ erhält 84 Prozent, der Rest ist Katastrophenhilfe. Letzten März flog Karzai nach Washington, um um mehr Geld zu bitten. Ihm wurde Extrageld von privaten Investoren versprochen. Davon gehen 35 Millionen US-Dollar in den Bau eines geplanten Fünfsternehotels. Wie Bush sagte: „Das afghanische Volk wird die Großzügigkeit Amerikas und seiner Verbündeten kennen lernen.“





      [ Übersetzt von: Eva-Maria Bach | Orginalartikel: "the Betrayal Of Afghanistan" ]
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 15:11:53
      Beitrag Nr. 10.272 ()
      Iran`s Ebadi Collects Nobel, Takes Swipe at West
      Wed December 10, 2003 08:06 AM ET


      By Inger Sethov
      OSLO (Reuters) - Iran`s Shirin Ebadi became the first Muslim woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize Wednesday and sent a bold anti-war message to the West, accusing it of hiding behind the Sept. 11 attacks to violate human rights.

      Reformist lawyer Ebadi, who was recognized for her work for the rights of women and children in Iran, was handed the prize by the head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, at a glittering ceremony at the Oslo City Hall.

      Ebadi slammed the U.S. administration for double standards in ignoring U.N. resolutions in the Middle East, while using them as a pretext to go to war in Iraq. The audience included Hollywood couple Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, star hosts of Thursday`s Nobel concert.

      "In the past two years, some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of Sept. 11 and the war on international terrorism as a pretext," she said in a prepared acceptance speech.

      "Regulations restricting human rights and basic freedoms ... have been justified and given legitimacy under the cloak of the war on terrorism."

      Wearing no headscarf for the ceremony, the 56-year-old who won the $1.4 million prize for her work for the rights of women and children in Iran, lashed out at what she called breaches of the Geneva conventions at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay military jail.

      Ebadi said Guantanamo prisoners had been "without the benefit of the rights stipulated under the international Geneva conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the (U.N.) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

      Ebadi, Iran`s first female judge before the 1979 Islamic revolution forced her to step aside in favor of men, said it was worrying that human rights were violated by the same Western democracies that had initiated the principles.

      The laureate said she, like other human rights activists, questioned why some U.N. resolutions were binding to the West and others were ignored.

      Ebadi, who has become a symbol of reformist hope in Iran while labeled a political stooge of the West by conservative clerics, also pointed a finger at her own government, urging Tehran to accept that reform is inevitable.

      "In fact, it is not so easy to rule over a people who are aware of their rights, using traditional, patriarchal and paternalistic methods," she said.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 20:49:47
      Beitrag Nr. 10.273 ()
      Bin Laden is winning

      December 10, 2003

      The al-Qaeda leader is succeeding in his aim of polarising the world between Islam and the West, writes Ewen MacAskill.

      Osama bin Laden, two years and three months after the New York and Washington attacks that were part of his jihad against America, appears to be winning. He has lost his base in Afghanistan, as well as many colleagues and fighters, and his communications and finances have been disrupted. He may be buried under rubble in Afghanistan or, as Washington and London assume, be hiding in Pakistan`s tribal areas. But from Kandahar to Baghdad, from Istanbul to Riyadh, blood is being shed in the name of bin Laden`s jihad.

      On Saturday, a Taliban bomb went off in a bazaar in Kandahar, aimed at US soldiers but wounding 20 Afghan civilians. On the same day, US planes targeted a "known terrorist" in Ghazni, also in Afghanistan, killing nine children. The deaths of the children will not help the US win hearts and minds in Afghanistan, or elsewhere; indeed, they will alienate Muslim opinion worldwide.

      There is a tendency in the West to play down - or ignore - the extent of bin Laden`s success. The American and British governments regard mentioning it as disloyal or heretical. But look back on interviews given by bin Laden in the 1990s to see what he has achieved. He can tick off one of the four objectives he set himself, and, arguably, a second.

      The objectives were: the removal of US soldiers from Saudi soil; the overthrow of the Saudi Government; the removal of Jews from Israel; and worldwide confrontation between the West and the Islamic world.

      His success in the first is clear-cut. Bin Laden`s animosity towards the US began in earnest with the arrival of thousands of US soldiers in his home country, Saudi Arabia, for the war against Iraq in 1991. He objected to their presence because Saudi Arabia holds Islam`s two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina.


      There is a tendency in the West to play down - or ignore - the extent of bin Laden`s success. The American and British governments regard mentioning it as disloyal or heretical.

      After September 11, the US did exactly what bin Laden wanted. It pulled almost all its troops out of Saudi Arabia. Relations between Washington and Riyadh have remained strained since September 11, not surprisingly given that the bulk of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia.

      Bin Laden has not succeeded in his second objective of overthrowing the Saudi regime. But its position is much more precarious than when he first called for it to be deposed. The US Government`s ambivalence towards Riyadh has created jitters in the kingdom. The Saudi authorities, after a decade in denial, are now confronting al-Qaeda and cracking down on preachers regarded as too fiery. Saudi Arabia has huge economic and social problems - including a large, disgruntled pool of unemployed youths - that leave it vulnerable. Reports of firefights between the Saudi authorities and al-Qaeda-related groups are now commonplace.

      Bin Laden has not achieved his third objective either: the destruction of Israel. In spite of its suffering at the hands of suicide bombers, Israel is in the ascendant, with strict controls over the daily lives of Palestinians, frequent assassination of suspected bombers and other militants, and a continued land grab in the West Bank.

      But the one-sided nature of the conflict and the emotions it arouses beyond its boundaries have helped bin Laden achieve the fourth and most important of his objectives: polarisation.

      In 1997, he predicted such polarisation at a time when it seemed unlikely: "The war will not only be between the people of the two sacred mosques (Saudi Arabia) and the Americans, but it will be between the Islamic world and the Americans and their allies, because this war is a new crusade led by America against the Islamic nations."

      Bin Laden, assuming he is alive and wired to the internet, would have enjoyed The Times of London on Saturday, which devoted the best part of a page to a story headlined "The new enemy within", warning of a potential bombing threat in Britain from a British-born sleeper from the Muslim community. That such a possibility is no longer regarded as unlikely shows the extent to which the world has changed.

      Tony Blair and his Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, have repeatedly argued that the "war on terrorism" is aimed at a small group of Muslim terrorists and the failed states that harbour them. They will, rightly, deny that it is a crusade against Muslims.

      Last week, the British Foreign Office published a list of its policy objectives, of which the war against terrorism was top, and acknowledged the danger of polarisation. Looking at the next 10 years, the Foreign Office said the battle of ideologies between market economics and Marxism that dominated 20th-century Europe appears to be giving way to battles over religion.

      "The possible confrontation of ideas most likely to affect the UK and other Western democracies in the early 21st century stems from religion and culture," according to the strategy document. "Religious belief is coming back to the fore as a motivating force in international relations; in some cases it is distorted to cloak political purposes. The question will arise most obviously in relations between Western democracies and some Islamic countries or groups."

      Bin Laden`s September 11 attacks are mainly to blame for this polarisation. But the responses of George Bush have exacerbated this, with his two wars and the failure to tackle the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

      Two years after the occupation of Afghanistan, US control is patchy. Outside cities, travel is risky, and even within them, life can be dangerous, as the Kandahar bombing demonstrated. The Taliban have regrouped and are returning in strength.

      Perhaps the war on Afghanistan was necessary - but the war on Iraq was not. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden. The US is fighting on two fronts, in control of neither country. Much of the resistance in Iraq to the US is from Saddam loyalists or criminal or tribal groups. But the US and British claim there are also elements of al-Qaeda.

      Instead of the war on Iraq, Bush would have been better, as Blair continually advised him, to deal first with Israel-Palestine. Although US Secretary of State Colin Powell last week showed interest in the Geneva accord, the work of the Israeli-Palestinian peace camp, Bush has dropped any pretence of a US that acts as an independent arbitrator in the conflict. He has placed himself alongside Israeli Prime Minister Sharon. Bush has said he supports the creation of a Palestinian state, but shows no desire to use America`s political and financial power over Israel to try to bring it about.

      The resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, however, is the only immediate way of reversing the dangerous polarisation of the world that bin Laden seeks.

      Ewen MacAskill is diplomatic editor of The Guardian, London, where this article first appeared.


      This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/09/1070732208809.h…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 20:52:14
      Beitrag Nr. 10.274 ()
      All Iraq is divided in three parts —Brian Cloughley

      Of all the Larry Lightbulb schemes for the future of Iraq the Three State Solution, as Gelb describes it, takes the prize for casual arrogance and military impracticability

      Many of my generation will remember the Latin primer ‘Caesar’s Gallic Wars’ (the Commentaries) of which the opening sentence is ‘Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est’: ‘All Gaul is divided in three parts’, which were Belgica, Celtica and Aquitania. Later (and luckier) generations probably learn more (and more enjoyably) about affairs in ancient Gaul from the Asterix and Obelix cartoon books, but the general drift is that the three parts into which the country (to use a convenient if incorrect description) was split ‘differ[ed] from each other in language, customs and laws’. Religion didn’t enter into it, as this was before Christianity or Islam took shape, but had they been in existence at the time, no doubt they would have figured prominently in the equation.

      In fact there were four major divisions of Gaul, and several minor ones, but like many details this did not trouble Caesar. Nor do details, apparently, trouble those who seek to advise the would-be modern emperor, George Bush, junior, in how to deal with the shambles he has created in Iraq. One of the latest suggestions involves three-part divisions, and religion is certainly a major consideration.

      Mr Leslie Gelb, the President Emeritus of the US Council on Foreign Relations and a foreign policy expert whose association with the good and the great dates back to the Johnson years, has come up with a novel solution to the Iraq governance problem: if you can’t unite them, split them, which is what the British Raj was accused of doing in India. Divide and rule isn’t precisely what Mr Gelb appears to have in mind, but it’s close enough to be worrying.

      Last month the New York Times carried a piece by Mr Gelb in which he declared “The only viable strategy [in Iraq] may be to correct the historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south. Almost immediately, this would allow America to put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly — with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad, largely freeing American forces from fighting a costly war they might not win. American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences.”

      This is an intriguing proposal from the man who was vehemently opposed to the Vietnam War and was instrumental in production of the Pentagon Papers. It is positively Kissinger-like in its approach to realpolitik, especially regarding the fate of the unfortunate Sunnis, not all of whom were avid supporters of the evil Saddam Hussein. But it cannot be doubted that many Sunnis gave him their devoted loyalty, and for that, says Gelb, all must suffer if they cannot moderate their (unspecified) ambitions.

      His other proposals are equally novel, and vary from the light-heartedly illegal to the bizarrely impractical. Hear Mr Gelb, for example, on the subject of minorities in areas that are predominantly Sunni. After self-governing entities are created by the US in the north and south, where peaceful democracy will automatically prosper (imagines Mr Gelb), the Sunnis ‘might punish the substantial minorities left in the centre’, so, to avoid being punished “these minorities must have the time and the wherewithal to organise and make their deals or go either north or south.”

      It is the banal word ‘go’ that is so illuminating. If they can’t make deals (what sort of deals, for Pete’s sake?) they will have to get out or be got out, and Mr Gelb admits that this ‘would be a messy and dangerous enterprise’ which anyone with a sense of history knows is a major understatement. It would be a bloodbath on the lines of India-Pakistan partition in which hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. Gelb blithely states that the US ‘should and would pay for the population movements and protect the process with force’. The fact that occupation troops couldn’t protect their commander-in-chief to the extent he could poke his nose beyond the razor wire during his electioneering publicity stunt in November is adequate comment on this particular piece of pie-in-the-sky.

      Would anyone ask these unfortunate minorities what they think about leaving their homes in Baghdad (for example) to be transported to regions completely foreign to them? And there is the small matter of the Geneva Convention on treatment of civilians in occupied territories, in that “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.” If minorities don’t want to be moved to the Kurdish tribal regime in the north (with its own minorities of Turkmen and Assyrian groups), or the theocracy that the Shias would construct in the south, will troops of the occupying power force them to transfer? If Mr Gelb’s proposals are seized upon by an administration desperate for any solution to its self-created shambles will we see scenes of weeping women and children being ejected from their homes and thrown into the backs of trucks with their belongings?

      Mr Gelb’s solution for governance of the Sunni area in the centre of the country is to ‘draw down American troops in the Sunni triangle and ask the UN to oversee the transition to self-government there’. That is, Bush should bail out and leave the chaos he created to be sorted out by the UN which he scorned for its stance on his illegal invasion. But then, Gelb suggests, “The Sunnis could ignite insurgencies in the Kurdish and Shiite regions.” It is not explained just how the Sunnis could foment uprisings in areas where they have no power of any sort, but Gelb suggests US troops should be deployed ‘north and south of the Sunni triangle, where they could help arm and train the Kurds and Shiites, if asked’. What for? To invade and punish the Sunnis who are being protected by a United Nations’ Mandate?

      Of all the Larry Lightbulb schemes for the future of Iraq the Three State Solution, as Gelb describes it, takes the prize for casual arrogance and military impracticability. The aim should be a federation on the US lines of States’ responsibilities. Dividing all Iraq in three parts would be a recipe for greater mayhem.

      Brian Cloughley is a former military officer who writes on international affairs. His website is www.briancloughley.com
      http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-12-20…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 20:54:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.275 ()
      Wednesday, December 10, 2003
      War news for December 10, 2003 Draft

      Jede Meldung ein Link:
      http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/



      Bring `em on: US soldier and Kurdish official killed, one US soldier wounded in Mosul drive-by shooting.

      Bring `em on: One US soldier killed, three wounded in bomb ambush near Mosul.

      Bring `em on: US C-17 hit by SAM at Baghdad airport.

      Troop rotations: "By promising troops they could go home after a specific time, the Pentagon may have boxed itself in to a particularly arduous rotation schedule, some military analysts said."

      "`They`re driven by the fact that though they claim this was a war of necessity, it`s really a war of choice,` said Lawrence Korb, who was assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. `Because it`s a war of choice, if they don`t get those troops out of there, they are going to cause long-term problems for the U.S. military because they will have horrible re-enlistment rates.`"

      Major electrical power failures in northern Iraq.

      US helicoper makes "emergency landing" near Mosul after reported onboard fire.

      Bremer`s CPA tells Iraqi Health Ministry to stop counting civilian dead.

      Bremer`s CPA-controlled Iraqi Oil Ministry imposes gasoline rationing.

      Bushies exclude non-"coalition" countries from Iraqi reconstruction contracts. Let`s be clear about the intent of this decision. Germany, Canada and France are American allies by treaty. These are our friends. The purpose of this exclusion isn`t to reward those countries that support the United States, but to punish those that don`t support George W. Bush.

      Job fair in Baghdad, but no jobs.

      Casualty Reports

      Local story: Texas soldier killed in Iraq.





      # posted by yankeedoodle : 10:00 AM
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 20:56:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.276 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 21:35:05
      Beitrag Nr. 10.277 ()
      Lassen sich von den USA ausbilden und dann ab in den Untergrund

      Dec 10, 2003

      Pentagon: One-Third of New Soldiers in Iraq Army Quit Just Before Starting Operations
      By Pauline Jelinek
      Associated Press Writer

      WASHINGTON (AP) - Plans to deploy the first battalion of Iraq`s new army are in doubt because a third of the soldiers trained by the U.S.-led occupation authority have quit, defense officials said Wednesday.
      Touted as a key to Iraq`s future, the 700-man battalion lost some 250 men over recent weeks as they were preparing to begin operations this month, Pentagon officials said.

      "We are aware that a third ... has apparently resigned and we are looking into that in order to ensure that we can recruit and retain high-quality people for a new Iraqi army," said Lt. Col. James Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman.

      The battalion was highly celebrated when the newly retrained soldiers, marching to the beat of a U.S. Army band, completed a nine-week basic training course in early October. The graduates, including 65 officers, were to be the core "of an army that will defend its country and not oppress it," Iraq`s American administrator, L. Paul Bremer, said at the ceremony.

      It was uncertain exactly why a third abandoned their new jobs, though some had complained that the starting salary - $60 a month for privates - was too low, officials said. The Chicago Tribune, which first reported the resignations, quoted officials in Baghdad as saying soldiers were angry after comparing their pay with the salaries of other forces. Iraqi police are paid $60 a month and the Civil Defense Corps $50, officials have said.

      Others may have feared threats from insurgents who have targeted Iraqis cooperating with occupation authorities, one Defense Department official said.

      It also was unclear whether what remains of the battalion would be sent out for duty, officials said. And Bremer was said to be considering a review of salaries.

      At press conferences and in speeches, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have repeatedly trumpeted the growth of Iraqi security forces - announcing breakneck speed in recruiting and training.

      "Across the country, Iraqi security forces - now number close to 160,000 - are assuming more responsibility for the security of their country," Rumsfeld said for instance at a Pentagon press conference Tuesday.

      "In Kirkuk, (the U.S. commander) reports that today nearly all crime is now dealt with by the 2,200 coalition-trained Iraqi security police," Rumsfeld said. "Joint patrols have largely ended and Iraqis have stepped forward in that particular area to patrol on their own."

      He didn`t mention the problem with the army recruits. Officials said Wednesday they were unaware of any other sizable resignations from the rest of the 160,000 new Iraqi security groups, which they said includes 68,000 police, 13,200 civil defense forces, 65,300 guards at facilities and infrastructure and 12,500 border police.

      The crumbling of Iraq`s first revived army battalion holds considerable symbolism because Bush administration officials have placed great importance on handing to Iraqis some of the duties performed by the 130,000 Americans occupying the country.

      But among all the security duties, it has been described as something the coalition had more time to develop because the main security problem in Iraq now is from within its borders rather than from outside.

      About three-quarters of the recruits in the first battalion were also soldiers of the 400,000-man Iraq army that fell apart under U.S.-British attack seven months ago. Bremer formally dissolved the old Iraqi army in May.

      A second battalion is still in the training course. The American plan calls for building a 40,000-man force of light infantry battalions by next October, after which a sovereign Iraq government can decide on the eventual size and makeup of its military.

      The Bush administration plans to spend some $2 billion on rebuilding the Iraqi army in the next year.

      The new units were to initially take on largely passive defense duties - such as border security and manning road checkpoints.

      Officials have been working for weeks to speed up the training of Iraqi soldiers and police to cope with new security threat following the stepped up attacks by insurgents, Bremer said early this month.

      The recruiting was done by U.S. authorities and the training is done by civilian instructors, mostly ex-U.S. military men, from the U.S. defense contractor Vinnell Corp., officials said.

      AP-ES-12-10-03 1519EST

      This story can be found at: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGACLPUT1OD.html
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 21:47:58
      Beitrag Nr. 10.278 ()
      Take No Prisoners

      Another proud moment in U.S. Military History.

      U.S. Marines execute an Iraqi to the cheers of fellow marines

      -:WARNING:-

      This video should only be viewed by a mature audience
      Das Video stammt von CNN:

      http://informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 21:49:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.279 ()
      AP: Iraq to Stop Counting Civilian Dead
      AP Newsbreak: Iraq`s Health Ministry to Stop Counting Civilian Dead From War

      The Associated Press



      BAGHDAD, Iraq Dec. 10 — Iraq`s Health Ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far, the official who oversaw the count told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
      The order was relayed by the ministry`s director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, but the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the ministry, also wanted the counting to stop, said Dr. Nagham Mohsen, the head of the ministry`s statistics department.



      "We have stopped the collection of this information because our minister didn`t agree with it," she said, adding: "The CPA doesn`t want this to be done."

      A spokesman for the CPA had no immediate response.

      The U.S. and British militaries don`t count civilian casualties from their wars, saying only that they try to minimize civilian deaths.

      A major investigation of Iraq`s wartime civilian casualties was compiled by The Associated Press, which documented the deaths of 3,240 civilians between March 20 and April 20. That investigation, conducted in May and June, surveyed about half of Iraq`s hospitals, and reported that the real number of civilian deaths was sure to be much higher.

      The Health Ministry`s count, based on records of all hospitals, promised to be more complete.

      Saddam Hussein`s regime fell April 9, and President Bush declared major combat operations over on May 1.

      The ministry began its survey at the end of July, when shaky nationwide communication links began to improve. It sent letters to all hospitals and clinics in Iraq, asking them to send back details of civilians killed or wounded in the war.

      Many hospitals responded with statistics, Mohsen said, but last month Shabinder summoned her and told her that the minister, Dr. Khodeir Abbas, wanted the count halted. He also told her not to release the partial information she had already collected, she said.

      "He told me, `You should move far away from this subject,`" Mohsen said. "I don`t know why."

      Shabandar`s office said he was attending a conference in Egypt and wouldn`t return for two weeks. Abbas` secretary said he, too, was out of the country and would return in late December.

      The coalition spokesman said officials who direct the Health Ministry weren`t immediately available for comment.

      Mohsen insisted that despite communications that remain poor and incomplete record-keeping by some hospitals, the statistics she received indicated that a significant count could have been completed.

      "I could do it if the CPA and our minister agree that I can," she said in an interview in English.

      Under Saddam`s government, the ministry counted 1,196 civilian deaths during the war, but was forced to stop as U.S. and British forces overran southern Iraqi cities. Over the summer, the ministry compiled more figures that had been sent in previously, reaching a total of 1,764.

      But officials said those numbers account for only a small number of the hospitals in Iraq, and none provided statistics through the end of the war.

      The number of U.S. soldiers killed in the war is well documented. The Pentagon says 115 American military personnel were killed in combat from the start of the war to May 1, when President Bush declared major combat over, and 195 since.

      Iraq kept meticulous records of its soldiers killed in action but never released them publicly. Military doctors have said the Iraqi military kept "perfect" records, but burned them as the war wound down.


      Niko Price is correspondent-at-large for The Associated Press.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 23:09:39
      !
      Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an feedback@wallstreet-online.de
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 23:15:16
      Beitrag Nr. 10.281 ()
      Published on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
      Corporate Media Ignores US Hypocrisy on War Crimes
      by Peter Phillips

      During the first week of December 03, US corporate media reported that American forensic teams are working to document some 41 mass graves in Iraq to support future war crime tribunals in that country. Broadly covered in the media, as well, was the conviction of General Stanislav Galic by a UN tribunal for war crimes committed by Bosnian Serb troops under his command during the siege of Sarajevo in 1992-94.

      These stories show how corporate media likes to give the impression that the US government is working diligently to root out evil doers around the world and to build democracy and freedom. This theme is part of a core ideological message in support of our recent wars on Panama, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Governmental spin transmitted by a willing US media establishes simplistic mythologies of good vs. evil often leaving out historical context, special transnational corporate interests, and prior strategic relationships with the dreaded evil ones.

      The hypocrisy of US policy and corporate media complicity is evident in the coverage of Donald Rumsfeld`s stop over in Mazar-e Sharif Afghanistan December 4 to meet with regional warlord and mass killer General Abdul Rashid Dostum and his rival General Ustad Atta Mohammed. Rumsfeld was there to finalize a deal with the warlords to begin the decommissioning of their military forces in exchange for millions of dollars in international aid and increased power in the central Afghan government.

      Few people in the US know that General Abdul Rashid Dostum fought alongside the Russians in the 1980s, commanding a 20,000-man army. He switched sides in 1992 and joined the Mujahidin when they took power in Kabul. For over a decade, Dostum was a regional warlord in charge of six northern provinces, which he ran like a private fiefdom, making millions, by collecting taxes on regional trade and international drug sales. Forced into exile in Turkey by the Taliban in 1998, he came back into power as a military proxy of the US during the invasion of Afghanistan.

      Charged with mass murder of prisoners of war in the mid-90s by the UN, Dostum is known to use torture and assassinations to retain power. Described by the Chicago Sun Times (10/21/01) as a "cruel and cunning warlord," he is reported to use tanks to rip apart political opponents or crush them to death. Dostum, a seventh grade dropout, likes to put up huge pictures of himself in the regions he controls, drinks Johnnie Walker Blue Label, and rides in an armor-plated black Cadillac.

      A documentary entitled Massacre at Mazar released in 2002 by Scottish film producer, Jamie Doran, exposes how Dostum, in cooperation with U.S. special forces, was responsible for the torturing and deaths of approximately 3,000 Taliban prisoners-of-war in November of 2001. In Doran`s documentary, two witnesses report on camera how they were forced to drive into the desert with hundreds of Taliban prisoners held in sealed cargo containers. Most of the prisoners suffocated to death in the vans and Dostum`s soldiers shot the few prisoners left alive. One witness told the London Guardian that a US Special Forces vehicle was parked at the scene as bulldozers buried the dead. A soldier told Doran that U.S. troops masterminded a cover-up. He said the Americans ordered Dostum`s people to get rid of the bodies before satellite pictures could be taken.

      Dostum admits that a few hundred prisoners died, but asserts that it was a mistake or that they died from previous wounds. He has kept thousands of Taliban as prisoners-of-war since 2001 and continues to ransom them to their families for ten to twenty thousand dollars each.

      Doran`s documentary was shown widely in Europe, prompting an attempt by the UN to investigate, but Dostum has prevented any inspection by saying that he could not guarantee safety for forensic teams in the area.

      During the recent meeting with Dostum, Donald Rumsfeld is quote as saying, "I spent many weeks in the Pentagon following closely your activities, I should say your successful activities." (Washington Post 12/5/03) The Post wrote how General Dostum was instrumental in routing Taliban forces from Northern Afghanistan in the early weeks of the war two years ago, but said nothing about General Dostum`s brutal past. Nor has US broadcast media aired Doran`s documentary.

      It seems that the US government`s interest in addressing mass graves and war crimes extends only to our opponents and that we tolerate such inhuman behavior among those who support our political agendas. The corporate media`s complicity in this hypocrisy is a glaring example of the need for widespread media reform in the US.

      Peter Phillips is Department Chair and Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored a media research organization.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.12.03 23:20:45
      Beitrag Nr. 10.282 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 00:07:29
      Beitrag Nr. 10.283 ()
      The Nobel Peace Prize for 2003


      The Nobel Lecture given by The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2003, Shirin Ebadi (Oslo, December 10, 2003)


      General permission is granted for the publication in newspapers in any language. Publication in periodicals or books, or in digital or electronic forms, otherwise than in summary, requires the consent of the Foundation. On all publications in full or in major parts the underlined copyright notice must be applied.

      Copyright © The Nobel Foundation, Stockholm, 2003.


      In the name of the God of Creation and Wisdom
      Your Majesty, Your Royal Highneses, Honourable Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

      I feel extremely honoured that today my voice is reaching the people of the world from this distinguished venue. This great honour has been bestowed upon me by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. I salute the spirit of Alfred Nobel and hail all true followers of his path.

      This year, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to a woman from Iran, a Muslim country in the Middle East.

      Undoubtedly, my selection will be an inspiration to the masses of women who are striving to realize their rights, not only in Iran but throughout the region - rights taken away from them through the passage of history. This selection will make women in Iran, and much further afield, believe in themselves. Women constitute half of the population of every country. To disregard women and bar them from active participation in political, social, economic and cultural life would in fact be tantamount to depriving the entire population of every society of half its capability. The patriarchal culture and the discrimination against women, particularly in the Islamic countries, cannot continue for ever.

      Honourable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee!

      As you are aware, the honour and blessing of this prize will have a positive and far-reaching impact on the humanitarian and genuine endeavours of the people of Iran and the region. The magnitude of this blessing will embrace every freedom-loving and peace-seeking individual, whether they are women or men.

      I thank the Norwegian Nobel Committee for this honour that has been bestowed upon me and for the blessing of this honour for the peace-loving people of my country.

      Today coincides with the 55th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; a declaration which begins with the recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, as the guarantor of freedom, justice and peace. And it promises a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of expression and opinion, and be safeguarded and protected against fear and poverty.

      Unfortunately, however, this year`s report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), as in the previous years, spells out the rise of a disaster which distances mankind from the idealistic world of the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 2002, almost 1.2 billion human beings lived in glaring poverty, earning less than one dollar a day. Over 50 countries were caught up in war or natural disasters. AIDS has so far claimed the lives of 22 million individuals, and turned 13 million children into orphans.

      At the same time, in the past two years, some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of 11 September and the war on international terrorism as a pretext. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 57/219, of 18 December 2002, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1456, of 20 January 2003, and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2003/68, of 25 April 2003, set out and underline that all states must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism must comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights and humanitarian law. However, regulations restricting human rights and basic freedoms, special bodies and extraordinary courts, which make fair adjudication difficult and at times impossible, have been justified and given legitimacy under the cloak of the war on terrorism.

      The concerns of human rights` advocates increase when they observe that international human rights laws are breached not only by their recognized opponents under the pretext of cultural relativity, but that these principles are also violated in Western democracies, in other words countries which were themselves among the initial codifiers of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is in this framework that, for months, hundreds of individuals who were arrested in the course of military conflicts have been imprisoned in Guantanamo, without the benefit of the rights stipulated under the international Geneva conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the [United Nations] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

      Moreover, a question which millions of citizens in the international civil society have been asking themselves for the past few years, particularly in recent months, and continue to ask, is this: why is it that some decisions and resolutions of the UN Security Council are binding, while some other resolutions of the council have no binding force? Why is it that in the past 35 years, dozens of UN resolutions concerning the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the state of Israel have not been implemented promptly, yet, in the past 12 years, the state and people of Iraq, once on the recommendation of the Security Council, and the second time, in spite of UN Security Council opposition, were subjected to attack, military assault, economic sanctions, and, ultimately, military occupation??

      Ladies and Gentlemen,

      Allow me to say a little about my country, region, culture and faith.

      I am an Iranian. A descendent of Cyrus The Great. The very emperor who proclaimed at the pinnacle of power 2500 years ago that “... he would not reign over the people if they did not wish it. And [he] promised not to force any person to change his religion and faith and guaranteed freedom for all”. The Charter of Cyrus The Great is one of the most important documents that should be studied in the history of human rights.

      I am a Muslim. In the Koran the Prophet of Islam has been cited as saying: “Thou shalt believe in thine faith and I in my religion”. That same divine book sees the mission of all prophets as that of inviting all human beings to uphold justice. Since the advent of Islam, too, Iran`s civilization and culture has become imbued and infused with humanitarianism, respect for the life, belief and faith of others, propagation of tolerance and compromise and avoidance of violence, bloodshed and war. The luminaries of Iranian literature, in particular our Gnostic literature, from Hafiz, Mowlavi [better known in the West as Rumi] and Attar to Saadi, Sanaei, Naser Khosrow and Nezami, are emissaries of this humanitarian culture. Their message manifests itself in this poem by Saadi:


      The sons of Adam are limbs of one another Having been created of one essence.
      When the calamity of time afflicts one limb The other limbs cannot remain at rest.

      The people of Iran have been battling against consecutive conflicts between tradition and modernity for over 100 years. By resorting to ancient traditions, some have tried and are trying to see the world through the eyes of their predecessors and to deal with the problems and difficulties of the existing world by virtue of the values of the ancients. But, many others, while respecting their historical and cultural past and their religion and faith, seek to go forth in step with world developments and not lag behind the caravan of civilization, development and progress. The people of Iran, particularly in the recent years, have shown that they deem participation in public affairs to be their right, and that they want to be masters of their own destiny.

      This conflict is observed not merely in Iran, but also in many Muslim states. Some Muslims, under the pretext that democracy and human rights are not compatible with Islamic teachings and the traditional structure of Islamic societies, have justified despotic governments, and continue to do so. In fact, it is not so easy to rule over a people who are aware of their rights, using traditional, patriarchal and paternalistic methods.

      Islam is a religion whose first sermon to the Prophet begins with the word “Recite!” The Koran swears by the pen and what it writes. Such a sermon and message cannot be in conflict with awareness, knowledge, wisdom, freedom of opinion and expression and cultural pluralism.

      The discriminatory plight of women in Islamic states, too, whether in the sphere of civil law or in the realm of social, political and cultural justice, has its roots in the patriarchal and male-dominated culture prevailing in these societies, not in Islam. This culture does not tolerate freedom and democracy, just as it does not believe in the equal rights of men and women, and the liberation of women from male domination (fathers, husbands, brothers ...), because it would threaten the historical and traditional position of the rulers and guardians of that culture.

      One has to say to those who have mooted the idea of a clash of civilizations, or prescribed war and military intervention for this region, and resorted to social, cultural, economic and political sluggishness of the South in a bid to justify their actions and opinions, that if you consider international human rights laws, including the nations` right to determine their own destinies, to be universal, and if you believe in the priority and superiority of parliamentary democracy over other political systems, then you cannot think only of your own security and comfort, selfishly and contemptuously. A quest for new means and ideas to enable the countries of the South, too, to enjoy human rights and democracy, while maintaining their political independence and territorial integrity of their respective countries, must be given top priority by the United Nations in respect of future developments and international relations.

      The decision by the Nobel Peace Committee to award the 2003 prize to me, as the first Iranian and the first woman from a Muslim country, inspires me and millions of Iranians and nationals of Islamic states with the hope that our efforts, endeavours and struggles toward the realization of human rights and the establishment of democracy in our respective countries enjoy the support, backing and solidarity of international civil society. This prize belongs to the people of Iran. It belongs to the people of the Islamic states, and the people of the South for establishing human rights and democracy.

      Ladies and Gentlemen

      In the introduction to my speech, I spoke of human rights as a guarantor of freedom, justice and peace. If human rights fail to be manifested in codified laws or put into effect by states, then, as rendered in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human beings will be left with no choice other than staging a “rebellion against tyranny and oppression”. A human being divested of all dignity, a human being deprived of human rights, a human being gripped by starvation, a human being beaten by famine, war and illness, a humiliated human being and a plundered human being is not in any position or state to recover the rights he or she has lost.

      If the 21st century wishes to free itself from the cycle of violence, acts of terror and war, and avoid repetition of the experience of the 20th century - that most disaster-ridden century of humankind, there is no other way except by understanding and putting into practice every human right for all mankind, irrespective of race, gender, faith, nationality or social status.

      In anticipation of that day.

      With much gratitude
      Shirin Ebadi
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 09:52:22
      Beitrag Nr. 10.284 ()
      `If I had to do it over again, I`d let rip`
      Al Gore`s backing of Howard Dean gives Democrats back their voice

      Sidney Blumenthal
      Thursday December 11, 2003
      The Guardian

      Since the trauma of the 2000 election, the Democrats have endured a history of loss and defeat, not only of office and programme, but identity, self-confidence and self-respect. As a congressional party that lost its majority in 2002, it has seemed to be in a nightmare that the party is incapable of escaping.

      Republican bullying has been met almost inevitably by Democratic cowering, the ruthless will to power by timid retreat. Before this spectacle, Democratic voters have felt themselves unrepresented and voiceless. Until the presidential candidacy of Howard Dean, their burning sentiments lacked expression. Now, Al Gore`s early endorsement of Dean dramatically amplifies them and partly explains them.

      Above all, Democrats are consumed with a rising sense of injustice. They believe that democracy was undermined when the votes were not counted in Florida and the supreme court made George Bush president; that the social contract in place since the New Deal is being shredded; that internationalist alliances are being shattered; that the president lied about the reasons for war; that the Bush administration acts with authoritarian impunity (refusing, for example, to make public even the members of the vice-president`s energy policy panel); and that the media is being overwhelmed by the din of a rightwing echo chamber that masks itself as journalism.

      In the face of constant provocation, Democrats see their own party as hesitant, compromised, if not complicit, and cowardly. "You`re either with us or the terrorists," Bush has repeated many times. The Democrats supported the war in Afghanistan. Most Democrats in the House and Senate backed the war resolution on Iraq. Yet none of this prevents Republicans from challenging their patriotism.

      As recently as last week, after Senator Hillary Clinton, who voted for the Iraq war, returned from inspecting Afghanistan and Iraq as a member of the armed services committee, a Republican party flunky and Bush family retainer named Scott Reed was trotted out to smear the former first lady as "un-American" when she called for more troops and international support.

      The Democrats` feelings for their congressional party are inextricably linked to their feelings for Bush. They saw Democratic legislators vote for regressive Bush tax cuts in the belief that it would insulate them from Republican assaults in the 2002 mid-term elections, only to see enough Democratic senators lose seats to tip the Senate. Time and again, even liberal lions such as Edward Kennedy have been bamboozled on education and Medicare.

      The congressional Democrats have been in denial about Bush`s conservative radicalism. They preferred to believe that fundamental comity still existed even when it was being smashed. They gathered no clue about the simmering among Democratic voters from the phenomenon of Senator Robert Byrd, a silver-maned irrelevance suddenly elevated to cult hero for his opposition to Bush on the Iraq war.

      All the major Democratic candidates running for president from Congress voted for the war resolution. Only Dean - the sole non-congressional candidate - stood against it. The late entry, the former general Wesley Clark, flip-flopped on the war, in effect turning himself into a congressional Democrat, declared that he had voted for Nixon, Reagan and the elder Bush, and volunteered that he`s for banning the burning of the US flag, a hoary Republican demagogic device.

      Gore`s endorsement of Dean is the most important since grainy film was shown at the 1992 Democratic convention depicting President Kennedy shaking hands with a teenage Bill Clinton. Gore`s endorsement is not the passing of the torch to a new generation, but another conferring of legitimacy. For Democrats, he personifies the infamy of the last election. He is not another politician, but the rightfully elected president, by a popular majority of 539,895 votes.

      But the Gore of today is not the Gore of 2000. The careful political figure trying to distance himself from Clinton and contorting his personality to project likability has been tempered by defeat. "If I had to do it all over again, I`d just let it rip," Gore said a year ago. "To hell with the polls, the tactics and all the rest. I would have poured out my heart and my vision for America`s future."

      Gore now calls the rightwing media a "fifth column" within journalism, and he`s raising millions to build a TV network of his own as an alternative. In his own way, he`s absorbed the lessons of the past three years and become a representative Democrat. His endorsement of Dean is his commentary on his campaign and the conduct of his party since.

      · Sidney Blumenthal is former senior adviser to President Clinton and author of The Clinton Wars

      · Sidney_Blumenthal@yahoo.com


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 09:55:25
      Beitrag Nr. 10.285 ()
      Global warming is killing us too, say Inuit
      Paul Brown in Milan
      Thursday December 11, 2003
      The Guardian

      The Inuit people of Canada and Alaska are launching a human rights case against the Bush administration claiming they face extinction because of global warming.

      By repudiating the Kyoto protocol and refusing to cut US carbon dioxide emissions, which make up 25% of the world`s total, Washington is violating their human rights, the Inuit claim.

      For their campaign they are inviting the Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to visit the Arctic circle to see the devastation being caused by global warming.

      Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the chairwoman of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which represents all 155,000 of her people inside the Arctic circle, said: "We want to show that we are not powerless victims. These are drastic times for our people and require drastic measures."

      The human rights case was announced at the climate talks in Milan, Italy, where 140 countries are trying to put the finishing touches to the Kyoto protocol, the first international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases. The backing of Russia, which is hesitating about ratifying the agreement, is required to bring the protocol into force. The US is trying to persuade the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, not to sign the protocol.

      The Inuit have no voice at the conference, since they are not a nation state, but Mrs Watt-Cloutier said: "We are already bearing the brunt of climate change - without our snow and ice our way of life goes. We have lived in harmony with our surroundings for millennia, but that is being taken away from us.

      "People worry about the polar bear becoming extinct by 2070 because there will be no ice from which they can hunt seals, but the Inuit face extinction for the same reason and at the same time.

      "This a David and Goliath story. Most people have lost contact with the natural world. They even think global warming has benefits, like wearing a T-shirt in November, but we know the planet is melting and with it our vibrant culture, our way of life. We are an endangered species, too."

      Mrs Watt-Cloutier comes from Pangirtung, north of Iqaluit, in Canada. The entire area should already be ice-bound, and winter hunting would normally have begun, but in Frobisher Bay, the home of both polar bears and Inuit, the water is still clear. "We now have weeks of uncertainty about when the ice will come," she said. "In the spring the ice melts not at the end of June but weeks earlier. Sometimes the ice is so thin hunters fall through.

      "The ocean is too warm. Our elders, who instruct the young on the ways of the winter and what to expect, are at a loss. Last Christmas after the ice had formed the temperature rose to 4C [39F] and it rained. We`d never known it before."

      Among the problems the Inuit face is permafrost melting, which has destroyed the foundations of houses, eroded the seashore and forced people to move inland. Airport runways, roads and harbours are also collapsing.

      The Washington-based commission, which is the Americas` equivalent of the European court of human rights, will be asked to rule against the US government but has no power to enforce any action. However, the Inuit believe the publicity the case will provide, particularly with hearings in Washington, will embarrass George Bush`s government and educate US public opinion about the consequences of profligate ways of living.

      "Europeans understand this issue but in America the public know little or nothing and politicians are in denial," Mrs Watt-Cloutier said. "We are hunters and we are trained to go for the heart. The heart of the problem is in Washington."

      She hoped that by winning the case Inuit would win a voice at climate talks. "The Inuit people see me as one of the leaders, with the same status as the ministers here. As a nation we are badly affected by climate change, but in these negotiations we have no voice.

      "We intend to get one so our representative can sit round the table with other ministers and demand action to save our people."

      Arctic dwellers

      · Inuit means "the people" and is the generic name given to indigenous people of the Arctic. Though the word "eskimo", meaning "eaters of raw meat", is still used to described Inuit, it is generally considered derogatory.

      · Inuit populations include Canadian Inuit, Alaska`s Inupiat and Yupik people, and the Russian Yupik.

      · Inuit are descendants of the Thule people who arrived in Alaska about AD500 and reached Canada in 1000. Alaskan Inuit now live mainly in the North Slope boroughs and the Bering Straits region.

      · Inuit rely heavily on subsistence fishing and hunting whales, walruses and seals.

      · The arrival of Europeans damaged the traditional Inuit way of life and since the 1970s their leaders have been campaigning for greater rights and asserting their territorial claims.

      · In more recent times Inuit have banded together to fight against environmental damage to their homelands.

      Alan Power


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 09:57:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.286 ()
      Taliban spies keep strong grip on south
      James Astill meets the elite US forces on patrol in Gereshk trying to stem the rising tide of bloody attacks

      James Astill
      Thursday December 11, 2003
      The Guardian

      Viewed through a heat-seeking telescope, three blurry silver spots pierce the darkness outside Gereshk in southern Afghanistan, creeping across the desert like slow-motion tracer fire.

      On a high watchtower outside the town an American sentry huddles into the black fleece jacket and thick beard that US special forces uniformly wear in Afghanistan. "Probably just shepherds, but, hell, you never know," he murmured. "We can`t even tell who`s the enemy in daylight."

      The silvery spots move on, away from the tiny military base, and enter Gereshk, a sandy cluster of war-wrecked warehouses and whitewashed mosques three miles to the east. The US base`s 36 elite Green Berets responsible for hunting the Taliban and al-Qaida across the vast province of Helmand are sometimes less fortunate. Not that their black-bearded commander, Captain Ed Croot, would admit it.

      "Helmand is the Taliban`s logistics centre, they`ve got a lot of drugs, a lot of money here, so it`s not surprising if we`re seeing a fair amount of enemy movement," Cpt Croot said. "But, knock on wood, we`ve not been ambushed or taken any casualties in the past couple of months... things are pretty calm."

      But, according to his soldiers and the local militiamen the US hires to fight alongside them, Cpt Croot was not quite telling the truth. Last month a special force operative, Special Sergeant Paul Sweeney, was killed and his interpreter was wounded in a Taliban ambush at Musa Qaleh, 30 miles north of Gereshk. More than 150 American special forces, including CIA paramilitaries, are now combing the area "to settle the score", as one soldier in Gereshk put it.

      Three days earlier the corpses of two Afghan informers were brought to the US special force base, with bullet wounds to the head. The killing followed a battle between America`s local allies and Gereshk`s police force in which around 40 civilians were killed, according to officials in the town.

      The battle began after Gereshk`s police chief shot dead the militia`s leader, Mohamed Edris. The militiamen said he had been killed because he had captured 22 suspected Taliban members for the Americans in the past six months.

      Jalil Ahmed, a militiaman, said: "Ninety per cent of the people here used to work in the Taliban government. Of course they tell the Americans they`re glad that they`re here, but it`s not true. They are not happy; they don`t want the Americans here."

      America`s elite soldiers also know this. "As soon as we leave the base, we see lights flashing down the highway for miles," one senior officer said. "Whenever we enter the town the horns start hooting. The enemy intelligence network is on top of every move we make."

      Across impoverished southern and eastern Afghanistan, the Taliban`s tribal homeland, the same desperate pattern is emerging. Military analysts and aid agency bosses in Kabul say America`s two-year military campaign has failed to root out the Taliban or to bring peace.

      "The Taliban are getting stronger; they`re regrouping, reorganising, and we`re getting a lot of fire right now," said Sergeant Ken Green, a National Guardsman seconded to US special forces. "We`ve racked up over 1,000 kills in just the last five weeks, mostly by air, putting B-52s over those bastards and bombing the hell out of them."

      This week the US launched its biggest ground attack yet against the Taliban, into the mountains of south-eastern Afghanistan. Codenamed Operation Avalanche, the attack is expected to involve 2,000 of the 10,000 US troops stationed in the country.

      According to Pentagon officials in Kabul the 10,000 US forces in Afghanistan, and their 170 international allies, have been attacked more times in the past three months than in the previous 12. Officially, 18 American soldiers have been killed this year and 20 wounded, mostly along the border with Pakistan, where the Taliban`s shadowy leaders are believed to have found refuge.

      That toll may be lower than the number of Americans killed in Iraq. But, compared with the number of Iraqis being killed, the death toll among Afghans is much higher. Officially, US troops killed nearly 400 Afghan fighters in September alone.

      "We`re trying to get the country to a stable point, and part of that is you have to kill the bad guys," Cpt Croot said.

      Yet the "bad guys" keep coming. And American troops are also killing civilians, including 15 children in air strikes in southern Afghanistan in the past week.

      The problem, say the same analysts in Kabul, is twofold. First, driven by the US department of defence, America has concentrated on killing and capturing its enemies to the cost of delivering order and development. Washington`s offer of $1.2bn (£69m) in aid looks less generous when set against the annual $10bn cost of its military campaign.

      And with few aid agencies now operating in southern Afghanistan, after 15 aid workers were killed in Taliban attacks, little aid money is likely to be spent there. The UN has withdrawn foreign staff to Kabul and forbidden them from walking in the city or even eating in its restaurants.

      Second, analysts say Washington`s military campaign is failing. To seek out its enemies the US relies heavily on local allies such as the unruly militiamen in Gereshk. "The truth is, are a bunch of Americans, or Brits or French, going to catch the bad guys? No, their intelligence network is amazing," Capt Croot said. "Almost every contact we have with them is a chance contact, and it`s usually started by them."

      Many analysts suggest that America`s local allies are not impartial professionals. "US forces in the field have a very sketchy understanding of the political environment they`re operating in," said Vikram Parekh of the International Crisis Group, a thinktank. "They`ve relied on some extremely compromised intelligence from their local allies, and in the process exacerbated existing rivalries that have nothing to do with the Taliban."

      "You have good days and bad days, but in the end you have good days: what we`re doing here isn`t a complete waste," said Chief Warrant Officer Gary Borrowdale, a thoughtful, well-mannered soldier, like most of the special forces men in Gereshk.

      Asked whether he expected to defeat the Taliban, he said: "Probably not, but that goes for most of these terrorist groups - you can`t defeat them."


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 09:58:44
      Beitrag Nr. 10.287 ()
      Disks missing from US nuclear lab `pose no threat`
      Staff and agencies
      Thursday December 11, 2003
      The Guardian

      The Los Alamos National Laboratory is searching for 10 missing computer disks containing classified information about other country`s nuclear programmes; a further case of sensitive information going astray at the US government`s nuclear weapons` research establishment in New Mexico.

      Its spokesman, Kevin Roark, said the missing disks posed "no threat to national security" and had probably been destroyed without the proper documentation.

      They contained classified and non-classified material from the Nonproliferation and International Security Centre, which tracks the attempts of other countries to make nuclear weapons and obtain the necessary materials to support nuclear weapons programmes.

      The disks - nine floppy disks and one large capacity storage disk - were found to be missing during inventory checks in the past few weeks.

      The lab has informed the US department of energy of their disappearance.

      "This situation is totally unacceptable," its director, Peter Nanos, said in a statement to employees.

      "Security is one of our most important jobs; obviously we now must look deeper into the control of all sensitive information and solve these problems."

      Since his recent appointment as director, and in the light of several prominent security lapses, Mr Nanos has been trying to make the lab more accountable.

      The lab, which produced the first atomic bomb, almost 60 years ago, has been stung by incidents in recent years in which it was blamed for not keeping track of classified data.

      In 1999 and 2000 it came under scrutiny when one of its scientists, Wen Ho Lee, was accused of removing classified materials from the lab.

      In the resulting trial Mr Lee was found innocent of spying.

      Three years ago two computer hard drives went missing in the section which designs nuclear bombs.

      They were found behind a photocopier.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 10:05:30
      Beitrag Nr. 10.288 ()
      The court case that could reshape US democracy
      By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
      11 December 2003


      It bears the utterly uninformative title of Veith et al vs Jubelirer (docket number 02-1580). But the case, which the US Supreme Court heard yesterday, deals with the explosive political issue of gerrymandering - and its ruling next year could literally reshape America`s democracy.

      Veith et al vs Jubelirer involves only Pennsylvania. The state`s Democrats have challenged what they say is a rigged and unfair plan to redraw congressional districts, a move approved by Pennsylvania`s Republican-controlled legislature after the 2000 census.

      But the case`s implications are nationwide. At stake is not only control of the House of Representatives in Washington, but the very health of democracy. "This is hugely important," says Sam Hirsch, an attorney for the Pennsylvania Democrats. "Gerrymandering on this scale is corrupting US democracy. This was not what the framers of the US constitution intended."

      Gerrymandering is an established American political tradition. Its name derives from Elbridge Gerry, a governor of Massachusetts who in 1811 endorsed an electoral district said to look like a salamander. "Call it a Gerry-mander," a wit said, and the term stuck.

      Under the devolved US system, the map of a state`s congressional districts is drawn by its legislature - not by a non- political body such as the Boundaries Commission in Britain. Changes are usually made after each 10-yearly national census.

      Over the years, partisan gerrymandering has become the norm - traditional spoils for the party which wins control in a state, and then tries to design congressional districts that send the maximum number of its own to Washington.

      Democrats have been as guilty as Republicans. But the growing Republican dominance at state level, combined with the wizardry of computers that draw districts to reflect voting patterns down to the tiniest street, has created an unprecedented problem.

      By law, districts must be exactly the same size. The idea therefore is to pack as many of the opposing party`s votes into as few districts as possible, leaving as many seats as possible in your party`s hands. In closely balanced Pennsylvania, Democrats are fighting a scheme which gives a million Republicans control of 10 House seats and the same number of Democrats control of five.

      Early this year Texas provided an even more spectacular gerrymandering row, as Democratic legislators fled the state for neighbouring Oklahoma. Their aim was to deny the Republican statehouse majority a quorum to push through a plan to redraw districts that would hand half a dozen Democrat-controlled seats to Republicans. In the end the Democrats cracked and the scheme went through. Only the courts can prevent it taking effect.

      Nationally, the consequences of gerrymandering on this scale are disastrous. "Voters no longer choose members of the House, the people who draw the lines do," says Samuel Issacharoff, professor at Columbia Law School.

      The House of Representatives is almost ossified. Only 20 or 30 of the 435 seats are competitive. Add to that gerrymandering on the scale of Texas and Pennsylvania, and the Republican majority - a narrow 229 to 206 on paper - is all but impregnable.

      Gerrymandering has hastened the polarisation of US politics. The big threat to an incumbent is often no longer in the general election (81 of the 435 Congressmen ran unopposed in 2002) but at a primary, where radical activists dominate. Incumbents thus become more partisan. Moderate Republicans or centrist Democrats, vital for cross-party co-operation, are threatened species.

      Which way the Supreme Court will lean is unclear. The 5-4 ruling in favour of George Bush at the last presidential election shows it does not shrink from political decisions.

      In the past gerrymandering has been treated as a fact of life, barred only on racial grounds. "But the fact the justices took this case suggests they believe extreme political gerrymandering needs a second look," Mr Hirsch says. "We`re cautiously optimistic."
      11 December 2003 10:01

      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 10:16:30
      Beitrag Nr. 10.289 ()
      December 11, 2003
      DIPLOMACY
      Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals
      By DAVID E. SANGER and DOUGLAS JEHL

      WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq`s debts, just a day after the Pentagon excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.

      White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon`s directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq.

      Many countries excluded from the list, including close allies like Canada, reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were incensed, in part, by the Pentagon`s explanation in a memorandum that the restrictions were required "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

      The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.

      The Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that "it would be difficult" to add to the $190 million already given for reconstruction in Iraq.

      White House officials said Mr. Bush and his aides had been surprised by both the timing and the blunt wording of the Pentagon`s declaration. But they said the White House had signed off on the policy, after a committee of deputies from a number of departments and the National Security Council agreed that the most lucrative contracts must be reserved for political or military supporters.

      Those officials apparently did not realize that the memorandum, signed by Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, would appear on a Defense Department Web site hours before Mr. Bush was scheduled to ask world leaders to receive James A. Baker III, the former treasury secretary and secretary of state, who is heading up the effort to wipe out Iraq`s debt. Mr. Baker met with the president on Wednesday.

      Several of Mr. Bush`s aides said they feared that the memorandum would undercut White House efforts to repair relations with allies who had opposed the invasion of Iraq.

      White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein`s government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt.

      "I can`t imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help," a senior State Department official said late Wednesday.

      A senior administration official described Mr. Bush as "distinctly unhappy" about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their exclusion from the contracts.

      Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.

      Several of Mr. Bush`s aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.

      "What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.` " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."

      A senior official at the State Department was asked during an internal meeting on Wednesday how he expected the move to affect the responses of Russia, France and Germany to the American request. He responded, "Go ask Jim Baker," according another senior official, who said of Mr. Baker, "He`s the one who`s going to be carrying the water, and he`s going to be the one who finds out."

      In public, however, the White House defended the approach. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said "the United States and coalition countries, as well as others that are contributing forces to the efforts there, and the Iraqi people themselves are the ones that have been helping and sacrificing to build a free and prosperous nation for the Iraqi people."

      He said contracts stemming from aid to Iraq pledged by donor nations in Madrid last month would be open to broad international competition.

      Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday that while the bidding restriction applied to prime contracts, "there are very few restrictions on subcontractors."

      He also said the World Bank and International Monetary Fund "may have different, or their own, rules for how they contract."

      When the committee was drafting the policy, officials said, there was some discussion about whether it would be wise to declare that excluding noncoalition members was in the security interests of the United States. As a matter of trade law, countries are often allowed to limit trade with other nations on national security grounds.

      "The intent was to give us the legal cover to make the decision," one official said.

      But the phrase angered officials of other nations because it seemed to suggest they were a security risk.

      Moreover, the United States Trade Representative`s office said on Wednesday that contracts with the occupation authority "are not covered by international trade procurement obligations because the C.P.A. is not an entity subject to these obligations."

      "Accordingly, there is no need to invoke the `essential security` exception to our trade obligations," the office added.

      That raised the question of why Mr. Wolfowitz included the phrase.

      The Pentagon was already recasting the policy on Wednesday.

      "Nobody had the intent of being punitive when this was being developed," said Larry Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

      "This is not a fixed, closed list," he said. "This is meant to be forward looking and potentially expansive."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 10:25:58
      Beitrag Nr. 10.290 ()
      December 11, 2003
      OP-ED COLUMNIST
      Breaking and Entering
      By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

      Whenever I think of President Bush`s invasion of Iraq, the image that comes to mind is that famous scene in the movie "The Shining" where Jack Nicholson, playing a crazed author, tries to kill his wife, played by Shelley Duvall, who`s hiding in the bathroom. As Ms. Duvall cowers behind the locked bathroom door, Mr. Nicholson takes an ax, smashes it through the door, and with a look of cheery madness peers through the splintered wood and announces, "Heeeere`s Johnny."

      That`s the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In a region where the combination of oil wealth, culture and the cold war has ossified politics for so long, in a region that has been barricaded from history for so many years, in a region where the U.S. has always been a status quo power, never a revolutionary power — the U.S. just crashed right through the locked door: "Heeeere`s Dubya."

      But here`s what`s surprising: So far, the biggest political fallout from the Iraq war has not been in the Arab world. It`s been in Israel. Say what?

      Yes, by destroying Saddam`s regime and the real strategic threat posed to Israel by Iraq, the Bush team has taken away one of the strongest security arguments from Israeli hawks: that Israel needs to keep the West Bank, or at least troops on the Jordan River, as a buffer in case Iraq again tries to come through Jordan to strike Israel, as it has done before.

      As long as Iraq loomed as a major threat, one could hear three arguments in Israel. One said no withdrawal from the West Bank and Jordan River was possible because Israel needed a security buffer. Another said withdrawal was essential to maintain Israel as a Jewish democracy. Because if Israel kept control of the occupied territories, there would soon be more Arabs than Jews living in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel. A third said that no withdrawal was tolerable because the Jewish state needed to control all the Jewish land, including the Biblical West Bank.

      The Israeli right has tended to blend the security and the Jewish land arguments, while the Israeli left has focused on the need to maintain a Jewish majority so Israel doesn`t become an apartheid state. But with the Iraq threat now gone, the argument is increasingly between those on the left and center who want to get rid of the territories to preserve Israel as a whole Jewish state and those on the Israeli right who want to preserve Israel on the whole Jewish land.

      Last week, an earthquake happened in Israel when a leading figure of the Israeli right split away and embraced the logic of the Israeli left and center. The Likud deputy prime minister, Ehud Olmert, gave a gutsy interview to Israel`s leading columnist, Nahum Barnea of Yediot, in which he indicated that Israel can`t continue occupying the West Bank and Gaza, with all their Palestinians, without losing a Jewish majority and eventually having to argue in the world against the universal principle of one person, one vote. "I shudder to think that liberal Jewish organizations that shouldered the burden of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa will lead the struggle against us," Mr. Olmert said.

      But Mr. Olmert is dubious about negotiating with the Palestinians. So, he argued, Israel should consider unilaterally dismantling settlements and withdrawing from most of the territories, including parts of Arab East Jerusalem, to maximize the number of Jews under Israeli control and minimize the number of Arabs.

      This marks a major split in the Israeli right. And one of the key factors enabling Mr. Olmert to move from focusing on the external military threat to the internal demographic threat is the fall of Saddam.

      The other thing that makes it possible is democracy. Of course Israel is the first state in the region to experience real fallout from Iraq. The freer the society, the more it is capable of speedy reflection, self-criticism and self-correction.

      The absence of democracy in the Arab world (coupled with the U.S. failure to stabilize Iraq) makes Arab states much more resistant to immediate political fallout. Their writers do not have enough freedom for meaningful self-criticism, and their lawmakers don`t have enough freedom for meaningful self-correction.

      So, have we smashed down the Middle East door only to find that there is no one on the other side? No, if we produce a decent outcome in Iraq, it will become an inescapable reality and the whole Arab system will have to respond — but it will be slow.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 10:37:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.291 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 10:39:17
      Beitrag Nr. 10.292 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 10:43:20
      Beitrag Nr. 10.293 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 10:52:30
      Beitrag Nr. 10.294 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Iraq Spy Service Planned by U.S. To Stem Attacks
      CIA Said to Be Enlisting Hussein Agents

      By Dana Priest and Robin Wright
      Washington Post Staff Writers
      Thursday, December 11, 2003; Page A41


      The Bush administration has authorized creation of an Iraqi intelligence service to spy on groups and individuals inside Iraq that are targeting U.S. troops and civilians working to form a new government, according to U.S. government officials.

      The new service will be trained, financed and equipped largely by the CIA with help from Jordan. Initially the agency will be headed by Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Badran, a secular Shiite and activist in the Jordan-based Iraqi National Accord, a former exile group that includes former Baath Party military and intelligence officials.

      Badran and Ayad Alawi, leader of the INA, are spending much of this week at CIA headquarters in Langley to work out the details of the new program. Both men have worked closely with the CIA over the past decade in unsuccessful efforts to incite coups against Saddam Hussein. The agency and the two men believe they can effectively screen former government officials to find agents for the service and weed out those who are unreliable or unsavory, officials said.

      By contrast, some Pentagon officials and Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, vehemently oppose allowing former intelligence and military officials into the new organization for fear they cannot be trusted. Intelligence experts said Chalabi and his sponsors also fear some former government officials would use the new apparatus to undermine the influence of Chalabi, who wants to play a central role in a new Iraq.

      Although no deadline has been set, officials hope to have the service running by mid-February. Congress had approved money for the effort in the classified annex of this year`s budget. The service will focus largely on domestic intelligence and is seen by some administration officials as a critical step in the administration`s effort to hand over the running of the country to Iraqis.

      The CIA declined to comment on the program.

      Establishing the service is just one of several new steps the CIA is taking to deal with an increasingly worrisome Iraqi resistance, U.S. intelligence officials said. In recent weeks, the deputy director for intelligence, Jami Miscik, has pulled together an analytical working group at CIA headquarters similar to the task force the agency used during the war. Miscik has more than doubled the number of analysts working to identify insurgents and their sources of support.

      Likewise, the CIA station in Baghdad has grown significantly since major combat operations ceased, as have the number of substations around the country. "The intelligence community doesn`t understand what`s going on in Iraq and has decided to put a whole bunch of analytical manpower on it," one intelligence official said. "They definitely didn`t think this would happen as it has," the official said, referring to the resilience of the insurgency.

      Another U.S. intelligence official used the phrase "midcourse correction" to describe new efforts by the larger intelligence community, which includes military intelligence.

      Two weeks ago, the U.S. occupation authority decided to form a paramilitary unit to track down insurgents. The unit, composed of Iraqi militiamen from the country`s five largest political parties, will work with U.S. Special Forces soldiers, and their operations will be overseen by U.S. military commanders. Since the summer, the CIA has recruited and trained some former Iraqi intelligence agents to help identify the insurgents.

      Setting up a new intelligence service is an obvious next step as U.S. forces work to thwart daily attacks that have killed and maimed Iraqis and Americans. But the challenges are daunting, especially in a country where the four secret Iraqi intelligence services acted for decades as Hussein`s main apparatus of control.

      Because political rivalries are acute in Iraq, some U.S. government officials with knowledge of the program said they are worried that various Sunni or Shiite factions could eventually use the service to secretly undermine their political competitors.

      According to some U.S. officials, L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. governor in Iraq, has come to regret his decision to disband the Iraqi army and, similarly, has become more open to using former Iraqi intelligence officials in the new service. In the summer Bremer dissolved Iraq`s four intelligence services, along with the ministries of information and defense.

      To vet Iraq`s former intelligence officials, the CIA has flown polygraph machines to Iraq. To help determine who is worth hiring, the CIA is relying on help from intelligence officials from Jordan and other Middle Eastern nations, from Iraqis on the Governing Council and from political leaders in the provinces.

      Hussein`s government kept meticulous records of its intelligence personnel and operations. Literally tons of these documents are now in U.S. hands and are being used to question new intelligence service recruits.

      Still, the outstanding issue is, "to what degree you bring back former intelligence service," one U.S. intelligence expert said.

      Candidates for positions in the new service will have to pledge loyalty to the goals of a free Iraq, an official said, and then provide a full accounting of what they were involved with in the past -- an honest airing of what they did for the previous government and what they did for Hussein.

      "We`ll try to build in enough protection," another official said.

      In the past, U.S. efforts to set up or bolster foreign intelligence services have had mixed results.

      After the fall of the Soviet Union, high-level CIA officials traveled to each newly independent state offering help. In Prague, for example, the CIA station tripled in size. The agency built a secure, bug-proof room in the prime minister`s castle, gave the president an armor-plated fleet of cars and helped the government find secret communist sleeper cells. In Iran, the CIA helped equip and train the Iranian secret police, Savak, whose human rights abuses against its own citizens under the shah fueled the revolution that brought Shiite fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini to power.

      "Intelligence services are the heart and soul of a new country," said one former CIA operative who helped several post-communist countries establish new services.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 10:59:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.295 ()

      Afghan soldiers move Soviet-era Scud missiles from militia stronghold in the Panjshir Valley to an army post in Kabul.
      washingtonpost.com
      Militias Transfer Heavy Arms, Bolstering Kabul`s Authority


      By Pamela Constable
      Washington Post Foreign Service
      Thursday, December 11, 2003; Page A46


      PANJSHIR GATE, Afghanistan, Dec. 10 -- The huge green military truck rumbled and belched as its driver waited for the signal. The snub nose of a Soviet Scud missile poked above the cab. A soldier slowly lifted the striped pole blocking the road, and a small arsenal began a historic journey from the militia lairs of the Panjshir Valley to the safekeeping of the Afghan government.

      The convoy of loaded missile launchers, tanks and artillery pieces left Panjshir Wednesday morning en route to an Afghan army compound in Kabul, 70 miles to the south. There, they would be turned over to central authorities, 15 years after ethnic Tajik insurgents seized them from the Afghan government during the insurgents` long fight against Soviet occupation.

      Although some weapons remained behind in the valley and some militia commanders reportedly resisted the move, officials said the political significance of the transfer was enormous, given the deep rivalries and mistrust between the Tajiks of the Panjshir and the two-year-old government headed by President Hamid Karzai, who is from the Pashtun ethnic group, Afghanistan`s largest.

      "We kept these weapons as the pride of our holy war, but we have peace and security now. Today they are the property of the Afghan people, not of any one faction," Gen. Bismullah Khan, the army chief of staff and a former Panjshiri commander, told reporters gathered beside a river that rushed through the rocky Panjshir gorge. "This shows our sincere and honest support for the government."

      Yet Khan and other officials suggested that only direct personal intervention by another Panjshiri -- Defense Minister Mohammed Fahim -- had persuaded the valley`s commanders to give up a hard-won arsenal that has provided them powerful leverage during the uncertain political transition since the collapse of Taliban rule in late 2001.

      The weapons surrender occurred only after months of negotiation and was reportedly unpopular with many prominent Panjshiris, but Defense Ministry officials said it would set a crucial example for other areas of the country. In Kabul, for example, officials hope hundreds of heavy weapons held by Tajik militias can soon be collected and turned over to the new national army.

      "There is no doubt that Panjshiris raised a number of questions and concerns. There were rumors among the people," Khan said. But he said Fahim visited the area, spoke with the commanders and elders, and won their support for the transfer. Fahim, who initially resisted efforts to reform the Afghan military and demobilize private militias, has emerged as a strong public advocate of such policies.

      Some militiamen watching the convoy expressed regret and suspicion over giving up so many heavy weapons, including two Scuds and 13 other Soviet-built missiles, 11 tanks and 38 artillery pieces. They noted that attacks by the Taliban and other anti-government forces are escalating just as the government is trying to disarm and demobilize the militias that fought against Soviet occupation and Taliban rule.

      Since October, about 4,000 soldiers and officers have been disarmed in Kunduz, Paktia and Kabul provinces, most of them handing over Kalashnikov rifles or other personal weapons in exchange for $200 in cash and a promise of job training. Wednesday`s heavy-weapons transfer was not part of that U.N.-supervised program, and there was no immediate reward offered.

      "This is a sad day for me. The Taliban and al Qaeda are alive with their guns, but the government is coming to the Panjshir for our weapons," said Ismael, 22, a militiaman who said he had once fought Taliban forces that surrounded his village. "If they collected all the weapons from the Taliban, that would be different."

      Several soldiers said they supported the transfer and were proud to turn the weapons over to central authorities after keeping them safely for so long. But they also expressed worry about their own futures in a competitive civilian society after spending years as fighting men.

      "I am an expert on Scuds. We captured them in 1987 and I studied them for 10 years. Is there anyone in the new army who knows anything about Russian weapons?" demanded Lt. Mahmad Ehsan, 30. "We all want these weapons to go to Kabul, to support our country, but what about us? What will happen to us now?"

      As the convoy crawled down the rugged Panjshir gorge, it passed hundreds of rusting Soviet tanks, the detritus of years of combat that consumed this impoverished but hardy corner of Afghanistan. It also passed hundreds of posters showing Ahmed Shah Massoud, the senior Panjshiri commander who dominated this valley for two decades and was assassinated by suicide bombers in September 2001.

      In interviews along the way, militiamen referred to Massoud as "emir sahib" -- respected Islamic leader. In their speeches, Afghan military officials invoked Massoud`s name in hopes of planting his posthumous imprimatur on their controversial move to disarm the country`s most politically powerful militia.

      "The credit for safeguarding these weapons goes to the martyr Massoud and the freedom fighters of the Panjshir," Deputy Defense Minister Rahim Wardak said as he sat on a stone ledge beside the rushing river. "The gratitude of the nation will be written in history."



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 11:06:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.296 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Mid-Course Correction


      By Jim Hoagland

      Thursday, December 11, 2003; Page A39


      The United States has launched a discreet effort to broaden and deepen serious consultations with its European allies on war and peace. The talks include discussion of NATO`s taking on a dominant command role in Afghanistan and of the alliance`s eventually becoming much more involved in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere in the Middle East.

      Two unpublicized meetings with an expanded core group of senior officials from NATO nations this autumn produced no disagreements on the principle of expanding the alliance`s involvement outside Europe, diplomatic sources report. The meetings may lead to a new allied security architecture that reflects global changes since the Cold War ended.

      Until now the Bush administration has been highly successful in containing its enthusiasm for Europe and for diplomacy in general. But both are getting a new look from a White House battening down for an election-year run through a sea of foreign policy crises.

      Tensions and resentments linger over the strong opposition to the Iraq war by France, Germany and Russia. The continuing strains surfaced this week through the announcement of a Pentagon ban on U.S.-financed contracts for Iraqi reconstruction for those three countries.

      But President Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, appear to be searching for new ground for cooperation in NATO with France and Germany while giving new prominence to allied countries that joined or supported the coalition of the willing that toppled Iraq`s Baathist regime.

      Rice followed tradition by hosting national security advisers from Britain, France and Germany at a private dinner in New York in September. Such gatherings of "the quad" have in the past been highly hush-hush and structured. But Rice added officials from Denmark, Italy, Spain, Poland and Portugal and encouraged a free-flowing conversation.

      The same group, with the addition of the Netherlands, gathered in London during Bush`s state visit last month. The most concrete proposal put forward was to consider merging the U.S. expeditionary force now in Afghanistan into a unified NATO-commanded operation over the next year. France and Germany have voiced no objection.

      Such discussions reflect a mid-course correction in diplomacy that the administration is making. So does last week`s appointment of former secretary of state James A. Baker III as Bush`s special envoy on Iraqi debt relief. Baker`s talents and biography ensure that foreign leaders will talk to him about much more than debt rescheduling, even if that topic is very important to Iraq`s reconstruction.

      Until now Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has masterfully restrained his own enthusiasm for special envoys able to operate outside his control. He is said to have acquiesced gracefully to Baker`s appointment after it was negotiated directly and in detail between Baker and the president.

      Bush is not so much settling the problems created by the deep and bitter divisions between Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over Iraq (and most other subjects under the sun) as he is bypassing them. The sharpest bureaucratic infighting on Iraq is lessening as deadly attacks on U.S. forces continue and as Bush makes clear his own new level of involvement.

      The president`s Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad, which contained multiple layers of symbolism, served to emphasize that deepening personal involvement. So does the Baker appointment, which suggests that an effective interagency process centered in the White House is at long last taking shape under Bush.

      The Powell and Rumsfeld camps still have scores to settle. But their battles will gradually shift to the pages of self-serving memoirs and other published accounts of who was wrong when and how. For the moment, Powell and Rumsfeld seem to have disengaged to a great extent from internal policy warfare over control of Iraq and other hot spots.

      Powell is about to welcome aboard a close and forceful Baker ally, Margaret Tutwiler, as the State Department`s undersecretary for public diplomacy. This will reinforce a sense among Washington insiders of an ongoing shift in the policy center of gravity.

      Baker`s effective coalition-building for Operation Desert Storm in 1991 is a high point of recent U.S. diplomacy. It positions him well to press U.S. diplomatic objectives with Iraq`s Arab neighbors and with the Europeans. But Baker is expected to avoid getting drawn into the coalition`s occupation of Iraq. That will continue to be run by Paul Bremer, who is sensitive about his prerogatives and authority. Bremer now communicates directly with Bush more often than he did in the past.

      Bush has too often stood by as his Cabinet`s national security titans have drawn out their arguments and clashes to damaging extremes. That is a luxury he seems to have decided he can no longer afford.

      jimhoagland@washpost.com



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 11:21:49
      Beitrag Nr. 10.297 ()
      Manuel Valenzuela: `The stupefaction of a nation`
      Posted on Wednesday, December 10 @ 10:21:03 EST
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Corporate Media Propaganda and its Weapons of Mass Distraction

      By Manuel Valenzuela

      He who controls the media controls the masses. Today, America`s media is controlled exclusively by fewer than a dozen multinational conglomerates and their many interests. NewsCorp, AOL, Viacom, General Electric, Disney and others have formed a media oligarch that reaches into every American home and most every citizen. These few omnipresent entities hold as paramount the belief in assuring for themselves perpetual loyalty from as many of the masses as possible. Revenue and profit, corporate growth and power, executive pay and ego, these are all determined by us, the masses, and helps explain why the oligarchy has decided to invest and take an interest in all forms of media that reaches and influences us.

      We are the lifeblood of the conglomerate, of vital importance, and, as such, it is in its best interest to control as much of our lives as possible, transforming us into obedient servants of obliviousness. Is it no coincidence, then, that the United States has become a nation whose masses no longer question authority or the propaganda that passes for news? Is it any wonder why we seem so ignorant as to what is being done to us and incurious as to what is happening in the world, readily and naively accepting as true everything that is spewed out of our televisions and newspapers? We have allowed the oligarchy to hide the keys of democracy while we carelessly follow it on the road to fascism, where the elite have control of all aspects of our lives, including our mind.



      We live at a time when capitalism`s inner demons are beginning to be exhumed from the catacombs of the human ego, when love for the almighty dollar and her sister greed blinds those basking in the hypnotizing light of greenbacks and materialism. This phenomenon, combined with the addictions spurred by power and pomposity, has created in the last several decades a need by the powerful elite to manipulate and condition the masses; to transform and mold us into subservient drones that neither think, question, participate or demand.

      Through the use of the television -- the most influential instrument of control and propaganda in present day America ñ conglomerates can direct and sway public opinion on virtually every subject they see fit. The television has become an opiate for the masses and a conduit from where conglomerates can dictate how society thinks, acts and evolves. Our habits and ethics are manipulated, our ideas and beliefs distorted. We are but pawns in a game of corporate capitalism played by a few elites whose economic interests lie in making us docile, conformist and oblivious creatures of mediocrity ingrained with the need to shop and consume. The system instills a sense of paralysis, isolation and uniformity among the masses. We are assimilated to conform to society, to incorporate how the oligarchy wants us to live. The derailment of democracy as we know it is the end result of the reality we are presently experiencing.

      As captives to their propaganda, our ears become theirs, our mouths spout their distortions and our minds contemplate what they want us to believe. To the capitalist elites, we are but a product, hundreds of millions of worker bees addicted to televison, easily persuaded and exploited, wishing for the escapist fantasies we see, sold like shares of stock to other corporate entities interested in our existence, in our captive audience. They are the strings by which we move, the drill instructors by which we march and the brain by which we think.

      Propaganda, both corporate and governmental, has seemingly exploded with the ever-increasing consolidation of the media. Today few interests own the majority of our nation`s airwaves, newspapers, Internet access, print media and television stations. One company can in essence control everything you hear, see and read on a daily basis, every year of your life. From coast to coast our sources of information are increasingly being sold to wealthy multinational corporations that more and more are mingling into our daily lives, transforming our beliefs, views and goals. American society is guided by them, evolving through the commands that help shape the direction opinion will take. Diversity of opinion and thought is disappearing faster than biodiversity on Earth.

      There is nothing more ominous than peering into the not-to-distant future and seeing Rupert Murdoch`s NewsCorp ñ one of the world`s largest media companies and owner of the Fox network (We distort, We decide) ñ have majority ownership of DirecTV, the nation`s largest home satellite TV company that in many ways represents the future of entertainment and information delivery. If the deal is allowed to go through NewsCorp could incessantly shove down our throats its right-wing, pro-Bush, pro-Murdoch business propaganda while shutting off truthful and diverse sources of information. With Bush`s FCC enamored with consolidation it is a good bet that the deal will go through.

      Guided by measly crumbs of ten-second news flashes, in paltry thirty-minute news capsules loaded with a potpourri of deceptions and distortions, the masses are subjected to a blitzkrieg-like summary of that news which the elites deem necessary to serving their own interests. These drops of news and information we are granted are designed to quench the already conditioned low level of curiosity among the masses. These morsels have no intellectual worth, no capacity to inform and act more to exacerbate ignorance than to educate. What tidbits of news are allowed to fester are an amalgam of contorted half-truths, cheerleading subjective diatribe and porous reporting that is biased in favor of those conglomerates that employ the reporter. This assures that the decisions and interests of the wealthy and powerful are maintained and accepted by the masses.

      What information does not serve the oligarch interest is either suppressed by omission or attacked. Government and corporate interests, such as those prevalent in our occupation of Iraq, prevent realities and truths from surfacing. Instead, propaganda is disseminated that will distort and manipulate the masses into believing exactly what those in power want. Corporate media caters to military interests because in many instances they are part of the military industrial complex. Simply look at General Electric, one of the world`s largest military contractors and owner of NBC and its sister stations. Helping manipulate the masses in time of war allows both the corporate media and the government advance their respective interest in subverting public participation and discourse while advancing a perception of consent around the nation. Forming a symbiotic relationship, both now fused into the same two headed beast, one the master of the other, their combined actions undermine the reality of a world not seen by the American public.

      Corporate media, an extension of its mother company, reports pro-business, pro-corporate and anti-labor positions on a constant basis. News bits lean towards those interests that will help the corporation achieve its goals of profit maximization, whether from pushing conservative, right-wing views onto a gullible public or from conditioning audiences towards those views it sees as paramount in securing allegiance. News reports are created not to be right but to have the highest ratings, which in turn means greater profit. The interests of the masses are ignored and exchanged for that debate which will fit the interests of the elite minority. Today, growing reports of an economic recovery linger on the evening news, but can we see it in our lives and in that of our friends and neighbors? No, but good economic news benefits the elite who depend on your wallets to fatten up theirs.

      Many low and middle-class citizens, through propaganda, manipulation and constant bombardment by incessant repetition of sound-bite slogans and visual imagery end up supporting those interests that are contrary to their own socioeconomic well-being. These people have in essence been brainwashed into believing that by assenting to the will and opinion of the elite their lives will be made better. Unfortunately for them, their lives are made worse as the continued exploitation and subjugation of their class continues by the same entities they so fervently believe in. This is a system where the powerful few command the weak majority and where the most important decisions are made to the benefit of the elite at the detriment of the rest.

      Manipulation of the masses has been made easy with the advent of television. Populations, many made ignorant by pervasive and purposeful determents of education (itself a different article altogether), naturally believe and blindly place their confidence in those "trusted" entities they watch on a daily basis. Television is made an all-comforting apparatus as we warmly welcome home the many celebrities we become enraptured with, each manifesting inside us our desire to partake in the small fictional fantasy world they inhabit. We become numb to reality and its consequences, failing to analyze and question the actual world we reside in due to conditioning we have undergone since early childhood.

      Over time we become robots incapable of discerning or even seeking the truth in the news that is provided us. We have been stupefied into believing the garbage blasted from the monitor. We have been trained to never question, always accept and to always flip the remote when our attention runs dry. News is decided on the basis of ratings and on the advertisers paying for commercial spots. Corporate media is but a business where profit is king and where the seeking of customers ñ other corporations buying ad space ñ is of primary importance. We are but a means to an end, mere statistics in the earnings game. Shows are designed not for our enjoyment but to attract and retain as many souls as possible from which to harvest revenue from advertisements and product consumption.

      The corporate media inundates us with promotion, news, gossip, tabloid, rumor and innuendo from those celebrities placed high above the pedestal of sanctimony. Our heroes` daily lives, loves, mistakes and exploits are absorbed into our psyches through the constancy of corporate media`s assault on our brainwaves. Hollywood-hero news is designed to distract us from real world events such as war and recession, keeping our minds pre-occupied and away from information that might wake our slumbering conscious. While showcasing for our viewing pleasure the present tribulations of our halo-anointed superstars of the moment, so-called journalists dissect, analyze and comment about hairstyles, appearance and supposed crimes with award winning passion. Yet real, pertinent and important news is given minor and oftentimes erroneous insight. Throughout the channel-horizon we see the same news, headlines and marketing package. The oligarch`s WMDs have been unlocked; weapons of mass distraction fester like noxious gases in every state, city and home.

      Repetitive sound-bites, facetious imagery, verbosity and one-sided and frivolous analysis and commentary by pundits, spinsters, newscasters and recycled "experts" is a daily and rampant occurrence on corporate channels, each spitting out talking points and the company lines and opinion, never forcing the viewer to actually think for herself. Relevant news is brushed aside in seconds so that the latest up-to- the-second news on "Wacko Jacko" is aired. Stories that have no relevance other than to stupefy a nation into ignorance are played and replayed, trumping that news that affects most people. We are witnesses to a form of propaganda that is transforming this nation from a once bright-shining pulsar of informed democracy into a dark nebula of nothingness where everything that matters is neglected and all that degenerates and indoctrinates prospers.

      Without an informed and participatory citizenry democracy begins to stumble. Our government is being taken over by the corporate Leviathan and we are indifferent as to its consequences. Crony capitalism is affecting tens of millions through lower wages, layoffs, longer hours, lost savings, tax burdens, lack of health care, increased pollution, perpetual warfare, electoral fraud and the gradual elimination of social services. Yet we remain passive and loyal, ignorant to the Leviathan`s war against us. The oligarchy uses its powers of manipulation to divide and alienate us from each other. The divisive and passionate topics of class, race, culture, religion, party affiliation, immigration and education are constantly hammered into our collective mind, announcing as real myths and stereotypes, classifying peoples into groups and imputing on them the necessary ingredients by which society will marginalize and disdain them. We are told our way of life is in peril, that we must vote against our interests in order to preserve that which we most cherish. As usual, fear is used to attain the Leviathan`s interests. A united society is a threat to the establishment, which is why we are separated and corralled into distinct clusters, conditioned to segregate ourselves from those deemed different and to fear those labeled a threat to our existence.

      In its never-ending campaign to control us, corporate media instills fear into our daily lives. It has found a gold mine with the war on terror, becoming yet another fear-mongering profiteer and looter of the American public. Abusing our still fragile memories of 9/11, the corporate media unleashes the vast array of products it manufacturers onto us, using fear as its principle marketing tool, hurling diatribes about our supposed imminent threats looming in every city. Consume, consume, consume the Leviathan commands, knowing full well that our fear will eventually succumb to their perpetual warnings of apocalyptic zeal.

      America has become a nation of obedient drones, aimlessly walking empty streets devoid of an informed and participatory population. Our nation is being pillaged in front of our eyes, the government is now in the hands of our masters. Apathetic puppets we have become, free thinking minds we have none. The light that once shined so bright has disappeared in a fictional world of fright. The elite that pull our strings are becoming stronger, objective information is disappearing. The powerful few now control the nation`s media and its ideas, and soon our free will and freedom to think as well. Democracy is disappearing, the Leviathan is swallowing us whole little by little, assuring itself of allegiance from a people who once questioned, were once curious and who once had control of this great nation.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 11:44:05
      Beitrag Nr. 10.298 ()








      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 12:22:00
      Beitrag Nr. 10.299 ()
      December 10, 2003 -- Dean leads Dems, but Bush bounces back, Quinnipiac University National Poll finds; Few admit they `hate` Bush or Hillary Clinton

      Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has surged to a 9-point lead over his nearest challenger in the Democratic Presidential pack, but President George W. Bush has solidified his lead over top Democrats and now scores 50 percent or higher against any challenger, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

      Among Democratic voters, Dean leads with 22 percent, followed by Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman with 13 percent and former Gen. Wesley Clark with 12 percent. Clark led the pack with 17 percent in an October 29 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University, when Dean had 13 percent.

      Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt gets 9 percent of Democratic voters, with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Rev. Al Sharpton at 8 percent each. No other candidate tops 5 percent, with 18 percent undecided.

      "Gov. Dean was surging even before the Gore endorsement. He has the most commanding lead -- except for Sen. Hillary Clinton -- of any candidate in this see-saw Democratic pack," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

      "But are the Democrats competing for the right to lose to President Bush? The President gets at least 50 percent against any of the nine Democratic wannabe`s and for good measure, tops Sen. Clinton, the Democratic favorite who says she`s not running."

      But not all the news is good for President Bush: American voters approve 51 -- 43 percent of the job Bush is doing, matching his all-time low of 51 -- 42 October 29.

      Looking at possible 2004 presidential matchups, Bush leads Dean 51 -- 40 percent, compared to 48 -- 42 percent October 29. Bush`s lead over other Democratic contenders has grown:

      51 - 40 percent over Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, compared to 48 -- 43;
      51 -- 39 percent over Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, compared to 49 -- 43 percent;
      53 -- 38 percent over Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt, compared to 49 -- 43;
      50 -- 41 percent over former Gen. Wesley Clark, compared to 47 -- 43.
      Bush leads New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 50 -- 44 percent, compared to 50 -- 42.
      If Clinton goes after the nomination, she gets 43 percent of the Democratic vote, the same as the October 29 Quinnipiac University poll, followed by 14 percent for Dean, 9 percent for Clark, 7 percent for Lieberman and 5 percent each for Kerry and Gephardt.

      While 38 percent of voters like Bush a lot and 19 percent dislike him a lot, only 3 percent admit they hate Bush.

      Looking at Sen. Clinton, 29 percent of American voters like her a lot and 23 percent dislike her a lot, but only 5 percent say they hate her.

      "Political commentators describe a high level of hatred against President Bush and Sen. Clinton. If the hatred is there, very few American voters will admit it," Carroll said.

      The economy is more important than Iraq in deciding how they vote next year, Americans say 62 -- 26 percent.

      American voters oppose same sex civil unions 53 -- 40 percent and the opposition grows to 60 -- 35 percent when asked if same sex couples should be allowed to marry.

      From December 4 - 8, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,071 registered voters nationwide, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percent. The survey includes 384 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 5 percent.

      The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and nationwide as a public service a d for research.

      TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President?

      http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x9400.xml
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 12:33:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.300 ()











      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 12:43:09
      Beitrag Nr. 10.301 ()
      Scoop Link: U.S. DoD Iraq Contracts Blacklist Memo
      Thursday, 11 December 2003, 2:03 pm
      Article: Scoop Link

      The following is a link to the memo that currently making waves in diplomatic circles... http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/pdf/D_F.pdf. The memo includes a list of countries that are entitled to bid for $18 Billion in Iraqi Reconstruction contracts. The list can be viewed below as an image. As can be seen New Zealand is on the list.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 12:55:39
      Beitrag Nr. 10.302 ()
      Wolfowitz`s grasp
      12/11/2003

      IN HIS DIRECTIVE restricting prime contracting bids for Iraq`s rebuilding to the coalition of nations that toppled Saddam Hussein, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz justified the exclusion of companies from France, Germany, and Russia by saying it "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

      Wolfowitz`s assertion would be true if the old Tammany Hall practice of punishing one`s enemies and rewarding one`s friends were the be-all and end-all of national security. But a statesman with a wide-angle vision of America`s interests would recognize the value of cultivating, enhancing, and -- when need be -- repairing relations with allies and partners.

      Pentagon officials talk about high-tech weapons and highly trained special forces as force multipliers, but nothing magnifies America`s clout in the world more powerfully than being able to act in concert with countries such as France, Germany, and Russia.

      So even if it satisfies a primal urge to settle scores with governments in Paris, Berlin, and Moscow that have had a shameful record of collusion with Saddam`s regime, and even if their companies` exclusion from prime contracts might be popular domestically, the Pentagon`s directive actually runs counter to "essential security interests of the United States."

      One of those interests is to help Iraqis root out the Ba`athist counterrevolution and rehabilitate an economy and infrastructure that Saddam`s wars and plundering left in ruins. For this purpose, President Bush should welcome all the help he can get from other countries -- even if in the past they valued their commerce and their would-be oil contracts with Saddam above the plight of Iraqis.

      As a practical matter, if the crushing foreign debts Saddam incurred are to be forgiven or alleviated -- an absolute necessity if Iraqis are to have any real chance to recover rapidly from the Ba`athist nightmare -- major holders of those debts will have to cooperate.

      Russia is the country that holds the most debt from three decades of selling arms to Saddam. France is second on the list, while Germany and the United States are in a virtual tie for third. Not surprisingly, Russia has already hinted that it will resist entreaties to help restructure Saddam`s debt if Washington does not rescind the Pentagon directive on prime contracts.

      Having just appointed former secretary of state James Baker as a special envoy to oversee the complex work of persuading Iraq`s international creditors to lift some of the debt burden, Bush cannot afford to alienate Iraq`s creditors and America`s partners. Soon enough a sovereign Iraqi government will make its own decisions about Saddam`s old clients. For now, Bush should put the repairing of trans-Atlantic rifts -- and the welfare of Iraq -- ahead of the ephemeral pleasures of score settling.

      © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 13:31:46
      Beitrag Nr. 10.303 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-contracts…
      THE WORLD



      U.S. Bid Policy Elicits Outrage
      Bush tries to limit the diplomatic damage of the decision to keep antiwar countries from competing for major contracts in Iraq.
      By Sebastian Rotella and Paul Richter
      Times Staff Writers

      December 11, 2003

      WASHINGTON — Facing outrage from Europe, Russia and Canada, the Bush administration Wednesday appeared to soften its decision to ban countries that did not support the war in Iraq from seeking $18.6 billion in prime contracts to rebuild the nation.

      President Bush phoned the leaders of France, Germany and Russia and promised to "keep lines of communication open" to discuss which countries would be allowed to bid, a White House official said. Bush had placed the calls to urge them to help restructure Iraq`s massive debt, but that seemed less likely given the anger over the policy.

      White House officials insisted that their policy of excluding antiwar nations from choice business deals in Iraq was unchanged. But they said they would be flexible in deciding which countries had done enough to qualify.

      At a briefing, a senior defense official said the roster of 63 eligible countries "is not a fixed, closed list…. This is an open list. We`re always going to reevaluate."

      The official suggested that a country might qualify for the list simply by declaring itself a member of the Iraq coalition, a step that such war opponents as France and Germany might find politically unpalatable.

      Officials made no mention of such flexibility when they disclosed the policy Tuesday. Though everyone would be eligible to become a subcontractor, the policy of blocking Russia and many European countries from seeking a prime contract touched a political nerve, and European opponents argued that the U.S. policy might violate international trade rules.

      The U.S. action on contracts reopened wounds from the run-up to the war, which began March 20. Trying to minimize the effect, White House officials noted that the directive applied only to the $18.6 billion in U.S. reconstruction aid and not to an additional $13 billion pledged by countries during a conference in Madrid, or to any other funds that might come through international organizations or to subcontractors.

      But antiwar countries complained that the Bush administration, despite its recent appeals for international help in rebuilding Iraq, had punished them by denying access to lucrative projects.

      Russia warned that the U.S. could endanger any chance that Moscow might comply with Washington`s requests to restructure the $8 billion that Iraq owed Russia. France said it would look into the legality of the U.S. move. Germany called the Pentagon directive "unacceptable" and an example of "extremely selfish economic lobbying."

      "Nothing is left of the promises in recent weeks to concentrate on the future rather than looking into the past," declared an editorial in Germany`s Maerkische Oderzeitung newspaper to be published today. "The recent call by top U.S. politicians for NATO commitment in Iraq appears to be insolence in light of the Pentagon order on contract bids. Washington cannot really believe that Berlin and Paris will first be punished and then go into battle with all flags flying."

      Canada, which opposed the war but has given about $230 million to Iraq since then, said it would cut off aid if Canadian firms were barred from bidding for reconstruction contracts.

      Paul Martin, who takes office Friday as Canada`s prime minister, called the decision "very difficult to fathom." Canada has supplied the largest number of non-U.S. troops to Afghanistan, freeing up American forces for Iraq, he said.

      "I understand the importance of these kinds of contracts, but this shouldn`t just be about who gets contracts, who gets business," Martin told a news conference Wednesday. "It ought to be: What is the best thing for the people of Iraq."

      A senior U.S. official said discussions were underway with the Canadians about whether they deserved to be on the list. Another official, who also asked to remain unidentified, said he believed that "Canada may be added, at some point down the line."

      The policy limiting 26 prime contracts to companies from coalition nations and Iraq became public Tuesday in a memo signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. Critics overseas regard Wolfowitz as a leader of U.S. neoconservatives with a perceived hawkish disdain for international institutions and multilateralism.

      The Wolfowitz memo said it was necessary to limit eligibility to protect "the essential security interests of the United States." Officials said this language was added because it was needed, under federal law, to provide a rationale when government contracting was not conducted in "full and open" competition.

      U.S. officials said they were surprised that the release of the memo had been greeted with such an outcry, because the administration had signaled its intentions several times earlier. Officials also said they had indicated their plans in congressional testimony, as well as in conferences with potential contractors last month in Washington and London.

      Russia`s foreign minister questioned whether Wolfowitz spoke for his government. "Individual politicians have made individual statements," said Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov. "I don`t think, however, that one can judge the U.S. policy as a whole from them."

      During a meeting in Berlin with his German counterpart, Ivanov reminded journalists that the U.S. promised to relinquish power in Iraq as soon as possible. He said Russia "is forming its position on the basis of the U.S. president`s insistent statements to the effect that the U.S. presence in Iraq is temporary, and that the people of Iraq will decide the future of its wealth on their own."

      Russia has a keen interest in access to Iraq`s reconstruction projects. Because of what was perceived as Russia`s sympathetic political attitude, Russian companies had a substantial share of contracts awarded under the U.N. "oil-for-food" program in the 1990s. In the decades before, as much as 80% of Iraq`s military hardware was Russian-made.

      The Kremlin has made it a priority to assure that contracts awarded to Russian companies before the war would be honored, among them a $6-billion contract signed with Lukoil, Russia`s second-largest energy company, to develop Iraq`s giant West Qurnah oil field.

      "We have a vast experience of cooperation, and many of Iraq`s enterprises were built with Russian experience," Ivanov said.

      Ivanov also took the opportunity to signal that Russia had no plans to comply with U.S. requests to write off all or part of Iraq`s debt. "Iraq is not a poor country," he said.

      Relations between the U.S. and Russia are likely to suffer, said Andrei Kortunov of the Foreign Policy Assn. in Moscow.

      "It will certainly weaken Russia`s motivation to continue to take into account the U.S. positions and actions to pursue their policy of pacifying Iraq," Kortunov said. "But I don`t think this is the last word on the issue. After all, Iraq is not the 51st state of the United States yet. In the long run, positions on such issues will be determined by the new Iraqi leadership."

      Although France has vigorously criticized the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the government of President Jacques Chirac opted for a muted reaction Wednesday. French leaders have shown a tendency since the war to pick their battles with Washington, avoiding tough rhetoric unless they believed the timing called for it.

      Foreign Ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous said Wednesday that he would not comment except to say France and other European Union countries were studying whether the U.S. directive was in accordance with "international competition law."

      The Bush administration`s action adds strain to bilateral trade relations already under pressure because of controversial measures to protect U.S. steelmakers and textile and apparel manufacturers. Last week, Bush lifted a tariff on imported steel that had been declared illegal by the World Trade Organization and triggered threats of billions of dollars in retaliatory penalties from the Europeans and others.

      Some experts in procurement law said the U.S. move raised legal questions. Bruce Shirk and Jessica Abrahams, attorneys at the Washington firm of Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, said they believed the decision might violate the WTO`s Agreement on Government Procurement. They said the policy "appears to be a rather abrupt change of course with regard to contracting for Iraq."

      But U.S. officials insisted that the agencies had reached a consensus that the policy didn`t violate WTO rules or any other international agreement.

      U.S. firms operating abroad might lose contracts or face other forms of retaliation because of the backlash over the Iraq bidding process, warned Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Economic Strategy Institute in Washington. Those most likely to get caught in the fallout are large U.S. contractors, aerospace firms, consulting companies or others that compete for government contracts, he said.

      "I think you have to expect some retaliation," said Prestowitz, the author of "Rogue Nation," a book detailing the rising costs of U.S. unilateralism. "What`s going to happen is, it`s not going to be visible, it`s going to be invisible.

      "U.S. companies are going to find out they`re not getting certain contracts, and they`re going to wonder why."


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Rotella reported from Paris and Richter from Washington. Times staff writers Maggie Farley at the United Nations, Jeffrey Fleishman and Christian Retzlaff in Berlin, Evelyn Iritani in Los Angeles, Kim Murphy in Moscow and Maura Reynolds in Washington contributed to this report.

      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 13:39:00
      Beitrag Nr. 10.304 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-un11…
      THE WORLD


      U.N. Will Operate in Iraq From Outside Bases, Annan Says
      By Maggie Farley
      Times Staff Writer

      December 11, 2003

      UNITED NATIONS — Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Wednesday that the U.N. would operate from bases in Cyprus and Jordan to help stabilize Iraq because it was still too dangerous to return to the country full time.

      "Mounting insecurity cannot be solved through military means alone. A political solution is required," Annan said in a 26-page report that outlined how the U.N. can help.

      The first step, he wrote, is to include some of the Iraqis who have been excluded from the political process, thus giving them a stake in the country`s future. He also urged the U.S.-led coalition to tone down its use of lethal force "even in the face of deliberate and provocative terrorist attacks" in order to undercut popular support for insurgents.

      The U.N. is under great pressure from Washington to lend its legitimacy and expertise to the transition to Iraqi self-rule, scheduled for the end of June. But in an effort to protect both his staff and the honor of the organization, Annan is quietly resisting greater U.N. involvement until sovereignty returns to Iraqi hands.

      He said his primary concern was safety. "I cannot afford to compromise the security of our international and national staff," said Annan, who withdrew foreign employees from Iraq in early November after attacks on the U.N. and other foreign aid agencies.

      "Under the circumstances, it is difficult to envisage the United Nations operating with a large number of international staff inside Iraq in the near future, unless there is an unexpected and significant improvement in the overall security situation," he said in the report.

      Annan is just as concerned with protecting both the integrity of the United Nations, which was damaged by the failure of diplomacy before the war, and the world organization`s diminished role afterward. Bush administration officials said they were confused by Annan`s demand to play a vital role in Iraq, while refusing to return until security improved.

      "We encourage the secretary-general to continue thinking about the return of international staff. It`s hard to play a vital role when the organization is not on the ground inside the country," said Richard Grenell, a spokesman for U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte.

      The report seems to be an appeal to history, establishing that the U.N. was poised to play a key role in Iraq before it was rebuffed by the U.S.-led coalition and became a target in August. Now Washington is pressing hard for the U.N. to come back to the country — and perhaps even take charge of the controversial political transition.

      Annan wrote that the U.N. was committed to helping the Iraqi people, but he said he would not put his staff`s lives on the line to take on the occupation`s most difficult problems. "I shall be asking myself questions such as whether the substance of the role allocated to the United Nations is proportionate to the risks we are being asked to take," he wrote.

      Although the report details a number of tasks that the U.N. can start doing right away from outside the country, he seemed to be buying time for a full return after the U.S.-led occupation ends and a U.N. envoy becomes the top international figure in the country, replacing the occupation administrator, L. Paul Bremer III. Annan has named U.N. veteran official Ross Mountain to be the acting envoy until a permanent official is appointed.

      That won`t happen until Annan is sure that his representative in Baghdad is independent of the coalition — and knows exactly what is expected in that job. U.N. officials say the existing mandates for the U.N.`s participation in Iraq are too vague.

      "Now is the time for precision," Annan`s political advisor, Kieran Prendergast, said Wednesday. "To those asking the United Nations to come back into Iraq, or to play a vital role, it`s reasonable to ask them, `What do you mean?` Involvement in what areas, exactly, and on what basis exactly?"

      There is also concern among top U.N. officials that, to Washington, the symbolic presence of a U.N. envoy may be more important than what the job entails. Annan emphasized that even though most international staffers had been withdrawn from Iraq, they were continuing to guide thousands of local employees inside the country by phone, e-mail and occasional face-to-face meetings.

      After the scheduled June 30 return of sovereignty, if the Iraqi government requests it, the U.N. is prepared to help organize elections in 2004 and 2005, and to assist in drafting a constitution.

      While noting that the dangers posed by insurgents are "real" and growing in sophistication and strength, Annan lauded efforts by the U.S.-led authority in provision of basic services and advancement of human rights.

      "Very real progress has been made in the past few months. This progress should not be underestimated," Annan wrote. He also urged countries that had not pitched in to the military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq to participate.

      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 13:52:26
      Beitrag Nr. 10.305 ()
      An electronic democracy

      Thursday, December 11, 2003
      ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ


      URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/11/EDGQV3JQRH1.DTL


      AMERICANS HAVE a strong tradition of welcoming, rather than resisting, new technologies. It is one of the factors that has contributed to our nation`s vitality and prosperity.

      At the same time, we are wary of this new electronic and digital world. Cyberspace is mysterious. As the new millennium approached, for example, fears of a global computer crash sparked near-apocalyptic fears.

      Now our electoral system is about to enter a new electronic era. With the tumult of the 2000 election still fresh, we face new fears about a possible voting scandal.

      In California, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley responded to these legitimate concerns by ordering that all electronic voting machines leave a paper trail by July 2006. This wise decision, which will undoubtedly influence the rest of the country, will also increase our confidence that our vote can be verified on paper.

      The Diebold Inc. in Ohio is one of four companies that has resisted meeting the requirement of a paper printout.

      But even a paper trail won`t be sufficient to calm voters` fears. Recent tests of computerized systems in Ohio found 57 potential security risks within the software and hardware of the system. As a result, Ohio delayed use of the machines until after the 2004 presidential election.

      Concerned about possible vulnerabilities, a group of computer experts has formed the National Committee for Voting Integrity. Governments at all levels should respond to scientists` concerns about the potential for subversion of the electoral system.

      No computer system is completely infallible or impenetrable. Establishment of a paper trail is an important safeguard.

      ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 15:04:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.306 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 15:20:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.307 ()
      Die Wahrheit über George W. Bush in 30 Sekunden

      Mit einem rasanten Online-Wettbewerb wollen Bush-Kritiker eine zweite Amtszeit verhindern

      Nichts weniger als die Wahrheit über George W. Bush sollen die Wähler erfahren. In einem Clip von maximal 30 Sekunden Länge. Mit oder ohne Ton. Hauptsache, die Botschaft wirkt. Denn Präsident Bush darf unter keinen Umständen eine zweite Amtszeit bekommen. Meinen zumindest die Macher des Spot-Wettbewerbs http://www.bushin30seconds.org



      weiter im Artikel:
      http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/16249/1.html
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 19:09:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.308 ()
      Ziemlich erschreckend und alarmierend:

      http://www.rense.com/general45/mass.htm
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 20:06:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.309 ()
      Diebold e-mail discusses price gouging Maryland


      by Steven T. Dennis
      Staff Writer

      http://www.gazette.net/200350/princegeorgescty/state/192070-…
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Dec. 11, 2003
      ANNAPOLIS -- An e-mail found in a collection of files stolen from Diebold Elections Systems` internal database recommends charging Maryland "out the yin-yang," if the state requires Diebold to add paper printouts to the $73 million voting system it purchased.

      The e-mail from "Ken," dated Jan. 3, 2003, discusses a (Baltimore) Sun article about a University of Maryland study of the Diebold system:

      "There is an important point that seems to be missed by all these articles: they already bought the system. At this point they are just closing the barn door. Let`s just hope that as a company we are smart enough to charge out the yin if they try to change the rules now and legislate voter receipts."

      "Ken" later clarifies that he meant "out the yin-yang," adding, "any after-sale changes should be prohibitively expensive."

      The e-mail has been cited by advocates of voter-verified receipts, who say estimates of the cost of adding printers -- as much as $20 million statewide -- have been bloated.

      "I find it appalling," said Del. Karen S. Montgomery (D-Dist. 14) of Brookeville, who plans to file a bill mandating a voter-verified paper trail.

      "I`d really like to have [yin-yang] explained to me anatomically, with the assumption that almost any place it would be would be painful," she said.

      Montgomery said that the price to add printers should be much lower and that she thinks it is being high-balled in part to keep people from talking about the printing system.

      Diebold spokesman David Bear would neither dispute nor confirm the accuracy of the "yin-yang" e-mail on Monday, saying it is "at best the internal discussion of one individual and does not reflect the sentiments or the position of the company."

      Last week, Diebold dropped threats to sue voting rights advocates who published the e-mail and other reportedly stolen documents or linked to an online archive of Diebold files from their Web sites.

      According to news reports, a hacker broke into the Ohio company`s servers using an employee`s ID number and copied a 1.8-gigabyte file of company announcements, software bulletins and internal e-mails dating back to January 1999.

      The purloined files include discussions of the security of Diebold`s voting machines, which has been a contentious issue in Maryland and other states.

      State Board of Elections Administrator Linda H. Lamone told The Gazette last month that Diebold had given a preliminary estimate of $1,000 to $1,200 per machine to add printouts, or up to $20 million for the state`s more than 16,000 machines. She said last week that she could not recall whether she got the figure from Diebold or media reports.

      Lamone, who said she had not seen the e-mail and did not know if it was accurate, also said she believes that a clause in the contract requiring that Diebold give Maryland the lowest price of any state for hardware should guard against price-gouging if the General Assembly mandates voter receipts. But some portions of the contract still would have to be renegotiated, she said.

      Bear said he did not know the particulars of the contract.

      The issue of voter-verified paper receipts continues to gain momentum nationally, with California`s secretary of state announcing that all electronic voting machines there must include paper printouts by 2006. The cost cited by one of Diebold`s competitors, according to news reports, was about $500 a machine.

      Aviel D. Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer scientist who wrote a report earlier this year that found the Diebold machines to be riddled with potential security holes, has advocated for voter-verified receipts. Without such a check on the machines, he said, errors or fraud could go undetected. Rubin`s report prompted Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) to ask for an independent investigation by SAIC Corp., which affirmed that the system was "at high risk of compromise."

      Bob Urosevich, president of Diebold Elections Systems, declined to estimate a price in an interview last month, saying the cost would depend on a number of factors.

      Lamone also said that adding paper printouts to the machines before the November presidential election would be difficult, but not impossible, if the General Assembly should mandate it. All of the equipment would need to be retrofitted, retested and recertified, new procedures put in place, and judges retrained, she said.

      Montgomery`s bill would allow voters to correct errors they find on a paper printout. It also would require random checks of paper records in 2 percent of election districts against the computer records to ensure that there has been no tampering with the computers. The paper records would be used as the final arbiter in the event of a recount.

      Lamone said she retains confidence in the system: "I think they`ve undergone so much study now that everyone in the world understands what their weaknesses are and what processes need to be put into place to make sure they are not compromised. We here in Maryland have taken giant steps to ensure the security of the voting system."

      Lamone said local jurisdictions are excited about the technology and conducting successful mock elections, with a voter education effort planned for late January.

      Urosevich told The Gazette last month that the Diebold system is secure. He also noted that the system passed extensive independent testing at both the state and federal levels, and said his company had already fixed the security issues found by SAIC.

      Lamone criticized

      Another e-mail from the archive, sent Dec. 18, 2002, and purported to be from Sue Page, one of Diebold`s Maryland project managers, criticizes Lamone by name.

      "Linda Lamone ... makes public statements airing dirty laundry and casting doubt. She`s about power and control. She feels powerful when she makes negative comments. What she misses is that her negative comments reflect negatively on her. She should be proud of and support her initiative of a state wide voting change, rather than casting doubt on her own decision."

      Page writes that the State Board of Elections has a negative approach, mandating to county election directors instead of working with them, and threatening University of Maryland researchers rather than building a positive relationship.

      Advice on how to deal with the media fell on deaf ears, she writes. "There`s not much that we can do, other than hope that a new Republican Governor will effect change."

      Asked about the e-mail on Thursday, Page said, "I`m not allowed to comment."

      Lamone, a Democrat, has been battling to keep her job amidst efforts from Ehrlich to install a Republican elections chief. Four of the five board members would have to vote to remove Lamone; three are Republicans and two are Democrats.

      Lamone said last week she had not seen the e-mail. "I don`t know whether they are really hers or not," she said, but she defended the agency`s actions. Lamone said that the agency has a very positive relationship with the University of Maryland and a collaborative effort with the counties.

      "I don`t know what she`s talking about," Lamone said. "We try to be as collaborative as possible."






      Frederick County | Montgomery County | Carroll County | Prince George`s County
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 21:09:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.310 ()
      Cluster bombs kill in Iraq, even after shooting ends
      By Paul Wiseman, USA TODAY
      BAGHDAD — The little canisters dropped onto the city, white ribbons trailing behind. They clattered into streets, landed in lemon trees, rattled around on roofs, settled onto lawns.

      Shahad Thaer Mustafa, 5, stands in front of her Baghdad home where her uncle was killed by a cluster bomblet.
      By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

      When Jassim al-Qaisi saw the canisters the size of D batteries falling on his neighborhood just before 7 a.m. April 7, he laughed and asked himself: "Now what are the Americans throwing on our heads?" (Interactive graphic:
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/world/gcluster/flash.h…

      The strange objects were fired by U.S. artillery outside Baghdad as U.S. forces approached the Iraqi capital. In the span of a few minutes, they would kill four civilians in the al-Dora neighborhood of southern Baghdad and send al-Qaisi`s teenage son to the hospital with metal fragments in his foot.

      Cluster bomb terminology

      Cluster bomb: A bomb that contains dozens or hundreds of small explosives and is dropped by aircraft.

      Cluster munition: A piece of ordnance that contains dozens or hundreds of small explosives and is fired by ground-based howitzers or rocket launchers.

      Bomblet (also called submunition or grenade): A small explosive packed inside cluster bombs and cluster munitions. Roughly the size and shape of a soft-drink can, tennis ball or D battery, bomblets are designed to explode on impact and spray an area with shrapnel.

      Dud: A cluster bomblet that fails to explode on impact.

      Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS): A ground-based weapon that fires up to 12 rockets a minute, each of which carries 644 cluster bomblets.






      The deadly objects were cluster bomblets, small explosives packed by the dozens or hundreds into bombs, rockets or artillery shells known as cluster weapons. When these weapons were fired on Baghdad on April 7, many of the bomblets failed to explode on impact. They were picked up or stumbled on by their victims.

      The four who died in the al-Dora neighborhood that day lived a few blocks from al-Qaisi`s house. Rashid Majid, 58, who was nearsighted, stepped on an unexploded bomblet around the corner from his home. The explosion ripped his legs off. As he lay bleeding in the street, another bomblet exploded a few yards away, instantly killing three young men, including two of Majid`s sons — Arkan, 33, and Ghasan, 28. "My sons! My sons!" Majid called out. He died a few hours later.

      The deaths occurred because the world`s most modern military, one determined to minimize civilian casualties, went to war with stockpiles of weapons known to endanger civilians and its own soldiers. The weapons claimed victims in the initial explosions and continued to kill afterward, as Iraqis and U.S. forces accidentally detonated bomblets lying around like small land mines.

      A four-month examination by USA TODAY of how cluster bombs were used in the Iraq war found dozens of deaths that were unintended but predictable. Although U.S. forces sought to limit what they call "collateral damage" in the Iraq campaign, they defied international criticism and used nearly 10,800 cluster weapons; their British allies used almost 2,200.

      The bomblets packed inside these weapons wiped out Iraqi troop formations and silenced Iraqi artillery. They also killed civilians. These unintentional deaths added to the hostility that has complicated the U.S. occupation. One anti-war group calculates that cluster weapons killed as many as 372 Iraqi civilians. The numbers are impossible to verify: Iraqi hospital records are incomplete, and many Iraqi families buried their dead without reporting their deaths.

      In the most comprehensive report on the use of cluster weapons in Iraq, USA TODAY visited Iraqi neighborhoods and interviewed dozens of Iraqi families, U.S. troops, teams clearing unexploded ordnance in Iraq, military analysts and humanitarian groups. The findings:

      •The Pentagon presented a misleading picture during the war of the extent to which cluster weapons were being used and of the civilian casualties they were causing. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters on April 25, six days before President Bush declared major combat operations over, that the United States had used 1,500 cluster weapons and caused one civilian casualty. It turns out he was referring only to cluster weapons dropped from the air, not those fired by U.S. ground forces.

      In fact, the United States used 10,782 cluster weapons, according to the declassified executive summary of a report compiled by U.S. Central Command, which oversaw military operations in Iraq. Centcom sent the figures to the Joint Chiefs in response to queries from USA TODAY and others, but details of the report remain secret.

      [/]Old bombs cause problems

      The U.S. Air Force used new, improved cluster bombs in Iraq that pose fewer dangers to civilians. But U.S. ground forces used old cluster munitions with a history of leaving unexploded bomblets (duds) that can detonate any time after they are deployed, causing civilian casualties.

      "The bulk of civilian casualties caused by cluster munitions (in Iraq) appear to have resulted from ground-launched munitions rather than by aircraft," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., an advocate on behalf of civilian war victims, recently wrote Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

      The Defense Department began to review its use of cluster submunitions after the 1991 Gulf War, when unexploded cluster munitions killed 22 U.S. troops and injured 58.

      Starting in the mid-1990s, the Air Force outfitted some cluster bombs with fins and a navigation system that adjusts for the wind. The new cluster bombs land within 70 feet of a target, compared with 700 or 800 feet in some cases for the models they replaced, Air Force Col. James Knox says. The CBU-105 (CBU stands for cluster bomb unit) carries 40 "skeet" bomblets. These "smart" bomblets are designed to self-destruct if they do not detect a valid target and deactivate within minutes if they hit the ground and do not explode.

      In Iraq, the Air Force also tried out two new cluster bombs. Each carried thousands of darts instead of bomblets; the darts can kill and destroy targets. But there is no dud problem because they don`t explode.

      U.S. ground forces won`t get improved cluster bombs until at least 2005. So in Iraq, they used cluster bomblets with dud rates well above the 1% the Pentagon set as its goal in 2001.

      "As far as I can tell, it`s an Army problem, not an Air Force problem," says John Pike, director of the non-partisan defense think tank GlobalSecurity.org.

      The Army`s new version of the multiple-launch rocket system (MLRS) warhead is supposed to have nearly twice the range (37 miles vs. 20) of existing rockets. It also would land within 10 yards of a target compared to within 120 yards. A global positioning system would improve the rockets` accuracy to contain bomblets to target areas. Tests are scheduled for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, 2005.

      Self-destruct fuses for submunitions were tested last summer at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico in an effort to eliminate duds. The Army is adding self-destruct fuses to M42 and M46 bomblets fired by 155 mm artillery.[/I]

      - By Paul Wiseman, USA TODAY






      U.S. forces fired hundreds of cluster weapons into urban areas. These strikes, from late March to early April, killed dozens and possibly hundreds of Iraqi civilians. Forty civilians were killed in one neighborhood in Hillah, 60 miles south of Baghdad, say residents and Saad Khazal al-Faluji, a surgeon at Hillah General Hospital who tracked casualties.

      The attacks also left behind thousands of unexploded bomblets, known as duds, that continued to kill and injure Iraqi civilians weeks after the fighting stopped. U.S. officials say they sought to limit civilian casualties by trying to avoid using cluster munitions. But often alternative weapons were not available or would not have been as effective during the invasion.

      •Unexploded U.S. cluster bomblets remain a threat to U.S. forces in Iraq. They have killed or injured at least eight U.S. troops.

      •The U.S. Air Force, criticized for using cluster bombs that killed civilians during the wars in Vietnam, Kosovo and Afghanistan, has improved its cluster bombs. But U.S. ground forces relied on cluster munitions known to cause a high number of civilian casualties.

      The Air Force, responding to the criticism, began working on safer cluster bombs in the mid-1990s and started using them in Afghanistan. But the Army started a program to install self-destruct fuses in existing cluster bomblets only after former Defense Secretary William Cohen called in January 2001 for dud rates of no more than 1% after 2005. The safer bomblets won`t be available for at least two years. During the war in Iraq, U.S. ground forces dipped into stockpiles of more than 740 million cluster bomblets, all with a history of high dud rates.

      Senior Army officials in Washington would not answer questions about the Army`s use of cluster weapons in Iraq. Maj. Gary Tallman, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said such weapons are effective "against enemy troop formations and light-skinned vehicles" and are used only after "a deliberate decision-making process."

      Why cluster bombs are deadly

      Cluster bombs have been controversial since they killed thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian civilians during and after the Vietnam War. They have since been used by armies around the world, including Russian forces in Chechnya and Sudanese government troops fighting rebels in a long-running civil war. But their use in urban areas of Iraq has given new momentum to a movement to restrict the use of cluster bombs.

      Last month, dozens of activist groups hoping to duplicate the success of the campaign to ban land mines formed a coalition aimed at getting a worldwide moratorium on cluster weapons. After seeing the toll the weapons took on Iraqi civilians and their own forces, even some U.S. soldiers have misgivings about using cluster weapons, at least in urban areas.

      As the war in Iraq approached, humanitarian groups warned the Pentagon against using cluster weapons, especially in urban areas. New York-based Human Rights Watch predicted on March 18, a day before the war began with an airstrike in Baghdad: "The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will result in grave dangers to civilians and friendly combatants." Cluster weapons are especially dangerous to civilians because they spray wide areas with hundreds of bomblets. Most are unguided "dumb" weapons, so they can miss their target, and many of the bomblets don`t explode immediately.

      The U.S. military was aware of the threat cluster munitions posed and was determined to minimize them. Col. Lyle Cayce, an Army judge advocate general (JAG), led a team of 14 lawyers providing advice on the battlefield to the 3rd Infantry Division on the use of cluster munitions, as well as other weapons, during its 21-day, 450-mile drive north from Kuwait to Baghdad. The goal was to ensure that U.S. forces complied with international humanitarian law, enshrined in the Geneva Conventions. "No other army in the world does that," Cayce says. "We value the rule of law."

      The Geneva Conventions hold that when choosing which targets to hit and which weapons to use, armies must make sure they do not "cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" and ensure that the harm to civilians does not outweigh the military advantages.

      U.S. forces relied on sophisticated radar to pinpoint the sources of Iraqi fire, then cross-checked them against a computerized list of about 10,000 sensitive sites, such as mosques and schools. Cayce and the other lawyers looked at potential targets and advised U.S. commanders whether the military benefits of using specific weapons against those targets justified the risks to civilians.

      Cayce gave advice 512 times during the war, usually in cases involving cluster munitions. Most involved sites outside populated areas. Cayce estimates he dealt with only 25 to 30 "controversial missions." For example: He approved a strike against an Iraqi artillery battery in a soccer field next to a mosque because it was firing on the 3rd Infantry Division`s artillery headquarters.

      By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY
      Iraqi armor that took cover in such date palm groves as this one in Yusifiyah was bombed by U.S. forces.


      The choices could be agonizing. He says he asked himself, "How many Americans do I have to let get killed before I take out that (Iraqi) weapons system?" Ten to 15 times, Cayce advised commanders against firing on a target; they never overruled him. Five times, in fact, they decided against using cluster munitions even after he gave them the go-ahead because they believed the risk to civilians was too great. "We didn`t just shoot there willy-nilly," he says. "It was the enemy who was putting his civilians at risk. ... They put their artillery right in town. Now who`s at fault there?"

      Rather than call upon their artillery to hit a target with cluster munitions, U.S. ground forces preferred either to use other weapons, such as M-16 rifles or tank rounds, or to summon the Air Force to hit Iraqi targets from the sky with precision bombs. "Cluster munitions were the last choice, not the first," Cayce says.

      But aircraft frequently were unavailable. Sometimes the weather was bad or sandstorms were swirling. Sometimes Air Force pilots insisted on seeing targets instead of relying on radar readouts. The cluster munitions, especially M26 rockets fired by a multiple-launch rocket system (MLRS), had greater range than other weapons and were more reliable in bad weather.

      Commanders also thought an MLRS was better at returning fire and killing the enemy. "MLRS is ideal for counterfire," says Col. Ted Janosko, artillery commander for the Army`s V Corps. In fighting on March 31 around Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad, U.S. forces came under heavy artillery fire from the Iraqis. "We used (MLRS) rockets to fire back," Janosko says. "As soon as we started using rockets, guess what? We never heard from that unit again. I`m not going to say we killed them all ... but believe me, they did not fire again from that position."

      The 3rd Infantry Division also used MLRS frequently. The rockets can go more than 20 miles, and they spray a wider area than other weapons. The 3rd Infantry fired 794 MLRS rockets during the Iraq war, according to an assessment by two high-ranking division artillery officers in the U.S. Army journal Field Artillery, published at Fort Sill, Okla.

      As they raced north from Kuwait toward Baghdad in late March and early April, U.S. forces fired rockets and artillery shells loaded with bomblets into Iraqi troop and artillery positions in Hillah, in Baghdad and in other cities. U.S. aircraft sometimes dropped cluster bombs as well.

      Just before U.S. forces` "thunder run" into Baghdad on April 7, the 3rd Infantry Division fired 24 MLRS cluster rockets into Iraqi positions at an important intersection in the capital. The damage assessment, recounted in the Field Artillery article: "There`s nothing left but burning trucks and body parts."
      Iraqis — and U.S. troops — stumble across bomblets
      No civilians in Iraq endured as much "steel rain" from U.S. cluster munitions as the impoverished squatters who live in the Nader neighborhood of Hillah, a city of 650,000 near the ruins of ancient Babylon. In Nader, stone houses are packed close together, roads are unpaved, raw sewage runs stinking in ditches and livestock wander aimlessly amid trash.
      Town hit hard by `steel rain`
      Residents, many of whom opposed Saddam Hussein and welcomed the U.S. decision to topple him, say there was no resistance in Nader, just Iraqi troops fleeing north through the area toward Baghdad. But U.S. radar reports showed Iraqi guns firing from Hillah, and anti-aircraft guns were located in a Nader-area schoolyard.

      The cluster attack began mid-morning on March 31.

      "I wish they`d shelled with regular artillery, not with those bloody cluster bombs," says retired civil servant Ali Selman al-Isawi, whose son, Wisam, 30, was killed that day. "Regular shells would hit only one spot, not every place just like a rain of death." Al-Isawi, 58, took six bodies to the morgue in his car.

      When the bombing started, Abdul Jewad al-Timimi, 44, a disabled veteran of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, decided to gather his wife and six children and clear out of Nader. He hoped to catch a taxi on a main road and get to his parents` house, 3 miles away.

      It was the wrong decision. Exposed on open ground, al-Timimi and his family were caught in a storm of falling bomblets. "We had no place for shelter," he says. "We were an easy target for the cluster bombs. It was just like land mines exploding everywhere."

      They stopped near a refuse-filled canal. "I heard only the explosion," al-Timimi says. "I caught two of the kids with my hand. But they were thrown backward, and I was thrown into the canal. My wife was thrown into a wall nearby. The baby was in her arms. The six children immediately were dead." Al-Timimi and his wife were injured.

      The scenes from Nader that day, including footage of a baby torn in half, were so gruesome that Westerntelevision networks refused to air them. The dead child, 2 months old, was Jacob al-Timimi.

      "My son," al-Timimi says. "I could not talk at that time. But I wished that the person who started this war, whether Iraqi or American, could be brought before me so I could kill him six times or kill six of those close to him. I still feel that way."

      Iraq Body Count, an anti-war group that has been compiling a database of civilian casualties from media reports, attributes 200 to 372 Iraqi civilian deaths to cluster bombs and munitions. That doesn`t include 78 to 201 civilians who died in fighting in and around Hillah; many of them were killed by cluster munitions, Iraq Body Count says, but it doesn`t know how many.

      Bitterness in Baghdad

      In Baghdad neighborhoods such as al-Dora, al-Furat and al-Hurriyah, the evidence of cluster-munition attacks is obvious. Holes the size of golf balls still riddle dust-colored stone walls around homes. Metal gates are pinged and punctured. Windows are shattered. Shrapnel from cluster bomblets has ripped into rooftop water tanks and torn through walls.


      By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY
      Children forage in an area of Hillah where cluster weapons reportedly killed 40.


      Many Iraqis are bitter that their neighborhoods were chosen for attacks by U.S. cluster munitions. That anger has hurt efforts to convince Iraqis that U.S. troops came as liberators, not occupiers.

      Baghdad was hit particularly hard in late March and early April. Cluster munitions landed in north Baghdad`s al-Hurriyah neighborhood on April 8, apparently aimed at anti-aircraft batteries in a nearby park. "The whole street went black," recalls Mohammed Mustafa al-Bayati, 42, a sergeant in the Iraqi army. Al-Bayati`s brother Maher, 33, was mentally disabled. He became disoriented by the explosions and smoke. Maher staggered into an intersection, where a bomblet got him. He died after 12 days in a hospital. Mohammed says he found 85 metal fragments in his brother`s body. "I counted them one by one," he says. Their father died a week later. Mohammed believes he died of grief.

      A few blocks away in al-Hurriyah, a submunition exploded in the courtyard of the home of Bashir Abdul al-Zaidi, 32 the same day. Shrapnel pierced his neck and abdomen. He crawled into the kitchen. Family members found him by following the trail of blood. He died on the way to a hospital.

      Before the attack, al-Zaidi`s older brother had a dream in which their dead father returned to remove a date palm tree from the garden. Asked why he was taking it, the father just said: "I need it." Now, the family understands the dream. "We realized it meant that someone was going to join their father in eternal life," says their mother, Telba Gutheb, 60. "It was Bashir."

      The cluster-bomb attack left hundreds of duds in al-Furat, a poor, densely packed Baghdad neighborhood of narrow streets and low, sparsely furnished houses with modest gardens.

      "This neighborhood became a no-man`s land," says Sheik Abul Amir Hussein al-Amir, 40, a local political leader. "You couldn`t take a car out unless someone walked ahead to lead you."

      Ten days after the attack, Tareq al-Lami, 35, discovered several unexploded cluster bomblets inside his family`s house in al-Furat. He carried them with a pile of trash to a vacant lot down the street. His relatives don`t know exactly what happened. They heard an explosion and found him dead.

      Children were particularly vulnerable. About a week after the cluster attack on Hillah, Mahmoud Medhi al-Jabouri, 15, was wandering the Nader neighborhood`s trash-filled streets with his brother Salem, 13. Mahmoud either picked up a dud cluster bomblet or stumbled across one concealed by refuse. There was an explosion, and Mahmoud was killed. "The bomb tore away his face," says his father, Mehdi Tali al-Jabouri, 53. Salem spent three days in a hospital with leg injuries; he has recovered.

      Duds continued to turn up in gardens, trees and fields months after the military campaign ended. Al-Furat resident Adel Khalil al-Taie, 35, found one on his roof when he went up to install a satellite dish in July. It was an irony he relished: The U.S. campaign to topple Saddam Hussein gave him the freedom to put up a previously forbidden satellite dish but left a deadly explosive on his roof.

      Sa`ad al-Shawk, 51, lost his wheat harvest to cluster munitions. His family`s field in Yusifiyah, which is south of Baghdad, is filled with unexploded cluster bomblets. A mine-clearance team that works for the U.S. State Department took a look at the field of waist-high stalks and decided it was too dangerous to clear.

      Dangers for U.S. troops

      The abundance of unexploded submunitions also left a dangerous mess for U.S. soldiers advancing into Baghdad.

      Troops from the 101st Airborne found themselves in Baghdad`s al-Jihad neighborhood in mid-April, contending with hundreds of unexploded M42 cluster bomblets. "There were M42s all around the houses," says Maj. Mike Getchell, 37, of Bridgewater, Mass., executive officer of the 101st Airborne`s 3rd Brigade. During the three weeks the 101st troops patrolled al-Jihad, they destroyed an average of 100 M42s every day.

      On April 19, Sgt. Troy Jenkins, 25, a 6-foot-7 paratrooper from Repton, Ala., was bringing up the rear of a patrol through the streets of al-Jihad. The streets were packed with people celebrating a festival. Suddenly, a little girl emerged from the crowd, carrying what turned out to be an M42 cluster bomblet. She tried to hand it to Jenkins. No one in the patrol knows exactly what happened next. But the bomblet went off, and the little girl, Jenkins and three other soldiers went down.

      The little girl died after her family took her to a hospital. Jenkins was evacuated for medical treatment, first to Kuwait and then to Germany, where he died after losing his left leg. He left behind a wife and two sons, ages 4 and 2. The three other soldiers recovered.

      Cluster munitions also may have claimed the life of Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez del Solar, 20. The Marine scout from Escondido, Calif., died March 27 after stepping on some type of unexploded ordnance while on reconnaissance patrol outside Baghdad. A Marine investigation concluded that the "origin of the ordnance is unknown and really impossible to determine," says First Lt. Eric Knapp, spokesman for the 1st Marine Division in Camp Pendleton, Calif.

      But the dead Marine`s father, Fernando Suarez del Solar, 47, has a different account. He says he was contacted by one of his son`s friends, who said the Army dropped cluster weapons on March 26 and not all of the submunitions exploded.

      "The next day, on the 27th, my son`s company received the order for advance and my son was a scout, so he advanced ahead of the others without information that there were unexploded bombs. ... The scout is looking for the enemy, so his eyes are on the horizon, so he was not looking down toward the ground. And he stepped on a bomb."

      Fernando Suarez, a former print shop worker who is now a full-time anti-war activist, is seeking an official explanation for his son`s death. He has angry words for President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "They say that America has the best weapons and the best technology and the best army. Well, this is not the best technology when they drop bombs that don`t explode, and then they don`t tell their own military where the bombs are. The best army would make that information available."

      Sgt. 1st Class Rick Johanningsmeier, 34, of Martinsville, Ind., was in the same Army unit as Sgt. Jenkins. He saw four more U.S. troops injured when a dud bomblet exploded near the Baghdad airport. "These things are wicked. They`re evil," Johanningsmeier says.

      In their Field Artillery article, Army Col. Thomas Torrance, who commanded the 3rd Infantry Division`s artillery in Iraq, and Lt. Col. Noel Nicolle praise the MLRS cluster munitions, calling them "the munition of choice for killing tanks and personnel in the open." They also note the weapon`s major drawback: the dud rate.

      "The duds ... littered the battlefield and created a hazard to the local populace," they write. "We need to develop a bomblet for cannons and MLRS that self-destructs or re-engineer the round to significantly reduce the dud rate."

      To reduce casualties from dud bomblets, the military tried to keep track of where it fired cluster munitions. U.S. military and State Department teams are working to clear unexploded bomblets in Iraq. The U.S. military also has tried to warn Iraqis about the dangers of unexploded submunitions. U.S. forces have addressed schools and town councils and put up educational posters.

      Cayce, the Army lawyer, believes U.S. forces acted responsibly. Even so, he says: "Ethically and morally, we need to find alternatives to cluster weapons in cities."


      Contributing: Valerie Alvord in Escondido, Calif.; Steven Komarow in Baghdad, Dave Moniz in Washington, D.C., and Mark Memmott

      Find this article at:
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-11-cluster-b…

      Find this article at:
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-cluster-b…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 21:17:13
      Beitrag Nr. 10.311 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 21:36:52
      Beitrag Nr. 10.312 ()
      U.S. Says Deal Reached with EU on Air Passengers
      Thu December 11, 2003 07:40 AM ET

      By Lisa Jucca
      BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union and the United States have reached a broad deal on sharing air passengers` data to help track suspected terrorists and criminals, a U.S. official said on Thursday.

      Agreement would end months of tense talks as the EU had reacted with anger to the U.S. demands, saying they infringed on the rights of its citizens.

      A spokesman for the European Commission could not confirm a deal had been reached.

      "An agreement has been reached on all the main elements of the package," a U.S. official told Reuters. "Our expectation is that (Internal Market Commissioner Frits) Bolkestein will be in a position to announce the terms of the package on Tuesday."

      Washington has requested non-U.S. airlines to hand over up to 39 pieces of data for each passenger, including credit card details, home address and phone number.

      Airlines face a fine or the potential loss of landing rights in the United States if they fail to comply.

      The U.S. is demanding access to EU airlines` booking records in a bid to gather useful information to prevent acts such as the September 11, 2001 air attacks.

      LEGAL THREATS

      "Contacts are still continuing. There are still several outstanding issues," said European Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd, declining to add more details. Bolkestein, heading the negotiations with the United States, is to report to the European Parliament on the issue next week.

      On October 9, the EU assembly gave the Commission two months to sort out the problem, threatening action in front of the European Court of Justice if the Commission failed to ensure Washington puts adequate privacy safeguards in place.

      U.S. authorities want to store the data for years and use them to combat not only terrorism but also ordinary crime.

      By getting data in advance, they can screen the data and decide who needs additional checking at the borders or prevent individuals from boarding a plane.

      The U.S. request has pressured air carriers such as British Airways, Lufthansa, Air France and others to start sharing passengers` data to U.S. authorities. But they risk being sued by passengers for breach of EU laws.

      © Reuters 2003. All Rights Reserved.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 21:38:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.313 ()
      The Official Neocon 2004 Calendar

      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 23:13:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.314 ()
      Published on Thursday, December 11, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
      Kissinger`s Dark Legacy
      by César Chelala

      Recently released documents by the National Security Archive shed important light on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger`s role in Argentina. These documents indicate that Kissinger approved of Argentina`s military junta`s ruthless tactics to eliminate any opposition to their rule. They are a severe indictment of the Nobel Peace prize winner. This information confirms journalist Christopher Hitchens`s denunciation of Kissinger`s responsibility in human rights abuses world-wide in his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger.

      One key document dated October 19, 1976, indicates that Argentina`s then foreign minister, Navy Adm. César Augusto Guzzetti, returned from Washington, D.C., "in a state of jubilation" when he became convinced, after meeting with Kissinger, who was then secretary of state in the Ford administration, that U.S. officials approved of the terror campaign against the opposition. Although Guzzetti assured Kissinger that the campaign against "terrorist organizations" would soon be finished, the killings increased in late 1976 and harsh repression continued until 1978.

      According to transcripts of that conversation released under the Freedom of Information Act, Kissinger told Guzzetti, " Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed, the better."

      According to Carlos Osorio, director of the Argentina Documentation Project at the National Security Archive, "This is final, definitive evidence that Kissinger gave a green light to Argentina`s generals."

      Mr. William Rogers, Kissinger`s lawyer, strongly rejected any suggestion that Kissinger had approved of human rights abuses. Rogers, who served as assistant secretary of state for Latin America under Kissinger, said, "It is show business. This stuff is utterly tendentious. There has never been a credible objective analysis that he [Kissinger] has committed an international crime."

      Rogers` defense of Kissinger is under increasing attack particularly as new evidence has emerged of Kissinger`s connections to human rights abuses in countries such as Chile and Indonesia. Kissinger is facing legal troubles related to Dr. Salvador Allende`s rule in Chile, and of former president Richard Nixon and Kissinger`s support for a coup that installed a bloody military dictatorship that ruled in Chile until 1990.

      In addition, two sons of Gen. René Schneider, a Chilean military commander slain in Chile in 1970, filed a lawsuit in Washington D.C. charging Kissinger of complicity in the murder of their father. According to the lawyer for Gen. Schneider`s sons, the suit is based on documents declassified over the last two years which indicate that Kissinger was a coordinator of a "Track II" plan that gave $35,000 to those who carried out the assassination.

      Documents obtained by the National Security Archive of George Washington University indicate that both former president Gerald Ford and Kissinger gave Ali Suharto, the Indonesian dictator, the green light to invade East Timor in 1975. Indonesian forces invaded East Timor the day after a conversation between Suharto and Kissinger in Yakarta in which Kissinger told Suharto, "It is important that whatever is to be done should be done quickly." In the following five years, almost a third of the population of East Timor was killed by the Indonesian military.

      In a speech in London in April of 2002, Kissinger tried to respond to suggestions that in the future he would be obliged to defend his foreign policy record. He said in that occasion, "No one can say that he served in an administration that did not make mistakes. The issue is whether 30 years after the event courts are the appropriate means by which determination is made."

      Despite Kissinger`s statement, this recently released information is a searing attack on Kissinger`s record, and makes a mockery of his Nobel Peace prize. It is a sad paradox of history that Kissinger would receive the Nobel Peace prize several years before former president Jimmy Carter, a true democrat, who since assuming office and until today has been campaigning relentlessly for human rights world-wide.

      César Chelala, MD, PhD, is the co-author of "Missing or Dead in Argentina," a The New York Times Magazine cover story for which the authors received the 1979 Overseas Press Club of America award for the best article on human rights.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 23:19:02
      Beitrag Nr. 10.315 ()


      Military Fatalities:

      *US**UK**Other**Total

      453**53****32****538

      Latest Military Fatality Date: 12/11/2003

      http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

      12/11/03 Reuters: 2 Blasts Rock Baghdad Near U.S. Compound
      Two loud explosions rocked the Iraqi capital Baghdad late on Thursday and a large plume of smoke could be seen coming from near the compound housing the U.S.-led administration in the city, Reuters witnesses said
      12/11/03 Reuters: Car bombing kills one Soldier, wounds 14
      One U.S. soldier was killed and 14 wounded in a suicide car bomb attack on an American military base west of Baghdad on Thursday, the U.S. Army said.
      12/11/03 PDN: Stryker vehicle fired upon - not an accident
      The 25-year-old Army specialist died Dec. 8 in Iraq after the vehicle he was driving was attacked by Iraqis, said his uncle, Santa Rita Mayor Joseph Wesley, citing Army officials who had spoken to the family.
      12/11/03 Reuters: Two Time Journalists Hurt in Patrol
      Two journalists with Time magazine were wounded, one seriously, when a hand grenade was thrown at U.S. forces they were accompanying in Baghdad, a U.S. military official said on Thursday.
      12/11/03 adn: Suicide bomber strikes U.S. base
      A U.S. Army base 60 miles west of Baghdad was attacked by a suicide bomber Thursday, but no American soldiers died, the military said.
      12/11/03 Centcom: 1 Soldier drowned, 1 missing
      A Task Force 1st Armored Division soldier drowned late last night, and one is still missing.
      12/10/03 MSNBC: U.S. Apache catches fire
      A U.S. Apache helicopter made a ``controlled landing`` south of Mosul in northern Iraq on Wednesday after a fire broke out on board, a spokesman for the 101st Airborne Division told Reuters
      12/10/03 AP: Plane Probably Hit, Lands in Iraq
      Guerrillas hit a U.S. Air Force transport plane with a surface-to-air missile, causing the engine to explode, a senior Pentagon source said Wednesday. The plane landed safely.
      12/10/03 Yahoo(AP): 1 Soldier Killed, 3 Wounded in Mosul
      One soldier died and three were wounded when a roadside bomb hit their convoy in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, the U.S. military said
      12/10/03 Centcom: U.S. soldier killed, 1 Wounded
      A 101ST Airborne Division (Air Assault) soldier was killed and one soldier was wounded today at approximately 11 a.m. in east Mosul when they were attacked by small arms fired from two vehicles.
      12/09/03 AP: U.S. Copter Hit by Ground Fire in Iraq
      A U.S. helicopter made an emergency landing Tuesday near the town of Fallujah west of Baghdad, apparently after being hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.
      12/09/03 Times: Suicide bomber injures 41 and 6 Civilians
      A suicide car bomber attacked a US military barracks in northern Iraq today injuring 41 American troops and six Iraqi civilians.
      12/09/03 Yahoo:Explosion Rocks Baghdad Mosque
      An explosion rocked a Sunni mosque in the Iraqi capital Baghdad on Tuesday and local residents said there may have been several casualties.
      12/09/03 SeatleTimes: Accident in Iraq kills three soldiers
      Three soldiers from the Fort Lewis-based Stryker brigade died last night in north-central Iraq when the collapse of a roadside embankment sent two of their vehicles tumbling into an irrigation canal
      12/09/03 AP: Car Bomb Injures 31 U.S. Troops in Iraq
      A car bomb attack on barracks near the northern city of Mosul early Tuesday wounded 31 American soldiers, mainly with flying debris and glass
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 23:26:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.316 ()


      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 23:35:53
      Beitrag Nr. 10.317 ()
      foreigners
      The Case of the Misunderstood Memo
      The Feith "annex" highlights the Bush administration`s misuse of intelligence material.
      By Daniel Benjamin
      Posted Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2003, at 11:14 AM PT


      When they published their "Case Closed" cover story three weeks ago on the relationship between Saddam Hussein`s Iraq and al-Qaida, the editors of the Weekly Standard aimed to set off a bomb. The article was centered on a sizable leak—a gusher, really—of classified intelligence, 50 raw reports that had been strung together in the Pentagon to demonstrate the "operational relationship" between Osama Bin Laden`s organization and Iraq. The target was the consensus among journalists and experts that there were no substantive ties between Baghdad and al-Qaida. If the article achieved its goal, it would help shore up the rickety argument that Baathist Iraq had posed a real national security threat to the United States.

      Despite Jack Shafer`s cri de coeur for some real reporting on the matter, the bomb sputtered. Some big publications took a passing look at material from the leaked annex to a letter from Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence—the document in which the 50 reports are summarized—but mostly for the sake of knocking it down, either explicitly or backhandedly. The piece has elicited one genuinely interesting column from the Washington Post`s David Ignatius, who revealed that the United States and Britain had a highly placed informant in Iraqi intelligence "who told them before the war that in the late 1990s, Saddam Hussein had indeed considered such an operational relationship with bin Laden—and then decided against it."

      For the most part, though, it seems the few beat reporters who cover the intelligence community called their sources and were told there was nothing new here—that the article was not, as author Stephen L. Hayes claimed, the fatal reproof to "critics of the Bush Administration [who] have complained that Iraq-al Qaeda connections are a fantasy, trumped up by the warmongers at the White House to fit their preconceived notions about international terror."

      As subsequent editorials show, this has clearly infuriated the Weekly Standard crowd, who were also hoping to flush administration foxes from the hedges and force them finally to back up the allegations they have made about Saddam and Bin Laden. As someone who co-wrote a book, The Age of Sacred Terror, that argued there was no substantive relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq—a conclusion based on a review of relevant intelligence from when I worked on counterterrorism at the National Security Council in the late 1990s—as well as a series of op-eds in the New York Times and elsewhere saying the same thing, I guess I should be happy that the Hayes piece stirred the pot so little.

      Instead, I`m as frustrated as the Standard-bearers.

      Why? First, the Feith memo does not prove what it sets out to, and a fuller airing of the issues would bring clarity to a topic that desperately needs it. Second, and more important, the document lends substance to the frequently voiced criticism that some in the Bush administration have misused intelligence to advance their policy goals.

      Hayes contends that Feith`s document demonstrates that the relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq "involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda—perhaps even for Mohamed Atta." Yet in any serious intelligence review, much of the material presented would quickly be discarded. For example, one report claims Bin Laden visited Baghdad to meet with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz in 1998, but this is extremely unlikely to be true given how many intelligence services were tracking both individuals` movements. Countless intelligence and press accounts of Bin Laden`s travels have appeared over the years while the man himself remained only where he was safe: Afghanistan. Hence, another report that has him traveling to Qatar in 1996 is almost as unlikely.

      There are also glaring mistakes in the analytic material, though whether the errors were originally Feith`s or Hayes` is not clear. What is referred to as Bin Laden`s "fatwa on the plight of Iraq" was in fact the famous "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," which spoke of the suffering of Iraqis but only as proof of a U.S.-led global campaign to destroy Islam. If anything, the sense of grievance over events, including the U.S. troop presence, on the Arabian peninsula is far greater. Moreover, some of the material presented in the article insinuates that Iraq staged the Khobar Towers bombing, when two administrations have laid the blame at Iran`s door.

      The Feith document does not recount many details of an operational relationship, nor does it illustrate a tie that was ongoing, cooperative, and operational. At best, it records expressions of various individuals` wish for a better relationship between the two sides—a desire that does not appear to have been consummated. Meetings between Iraqi officials and al-Qaida members began in the early 1990s, and there are reports that Iraq wanted to "establish links to al Qaeda." In 1993, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization`s capabilities through ties with Iraq." But in 1998, the Iraqis still "seek closer ties," and the sides are still "looking for a way to maintain contacts."

      There was a lot of seeking and wanting going on, and perhaps there were even meetings. But the fact that meetings occurred has never been the issue—at least not among serious critics—nor has it been disputed that some jihadists lived in or traveled through Iraq. (There were more meetings with Iranian authorities, as well as more terrorists living in or transiting Iran, but that seems to interest neither Feith nor Hayes.) What is disputed is that the meetings went anywhere. It would not be surprising to find out that the two sides had a de facto cease-fire, as has been alleged. But we`re still waiting to see real cooperation in the form of transfers of weapons and other materiel, know-how, or funds; the provision of safe haven on a significant scale; or the use of Iraqi diplomatic facilities by al-Qaida terrorists. The Feith memo mentions a few instances of possible Iraqi assistance to al-Qaida on bomb-building and weapons supply to affiliated groups, but nothing like the kind of evidence that, in Hayes` words, "is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources."

      What does all this say about how Feith and his underlings use intelligence? Hayes says, correctly, that the Feith memo "just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections." The large sampling provided in his article, he believes, destroys critics` arguments "that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been routinely `exaggerated` for political purposes; that hawks `cherry-picked` bits of intelligence and tendentiously presented these to the American public."

      What Hayes does not seem to recognize is that many of the treasures he imagines hidden in the existing CIA files may be dross or worse and, if presented, they would undermine the " `Cliff`s notes` version of the relationship" that he says is provided by the Feith memo. Of course there are more reports. When your intelligence service relays, as it should, everything short of sightings of Bin Laden on the moon, 50 reports of varying quality do not amount to much. The remaining material, many who are familiar with it believe, does not confirm the Hayes-Feith version but points in the other direction.

      Not surprisingly, none of the reports in the Feith memo mention the aversion that the Baathist and jihadists felt for one another. Similarly, there is no evidence of the contradictory nature of the intelligence. I would bet, for example, that there are plenty of reports putting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and perhaps a half a dozen other places in January 1998, at exactly the time he was supposed to be in Baghdad—and that would be only the most blatant kind of inconsistency. Attributing a report to a "contact with good access" does not mean the contact`s account is true. Proving a report correct, or sufficiently corroborated to be considered plausible, requires a lot more work. Putting all the disparate pieces together and trying to construct a coherent picture—yes, connecting the dots—is harder still, requiring a mastery of all the material. Of course, raw intelligence has its value, especially if you are worried about an imminent attack, but there is a reason why the intelligence community spends so much time and energy putting out "finished product," the reports that evaluate a significant body of information to get the whole picture right. Those are the reports that policy-makers are supposed to rely on in crafting a strategy.

      One thing intelligence analysts do as they evaluate a body of information is keep in mind the context. This is worth attempting in the case of the Feith memo, too, because while much of the material may be new to the public, most of it has been bouncing around the government since well before the invasion of Iraq. That means it has been scrubbed numerous times by analysts and senior officials eager to use it as they made the case for invading Iraq.

      After these reviews, it is clear, very little has been found that was solid enough to present in public. Compare the Feith memo with Colin Powell`s U.N. speech, which was preceded by the most thorough evaluation of the intelligence ever conducted by the Bush administration. Remarkably little on the ties between al-Qaida and Iraq made it into that speech. Or compare the memo with the recent remarks of Vice President Dick Cheney, who has all but stopped listing possible al-Qaida-Iraq connections and has given up suggesting that Mohammed Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official since saying it on Meet the Press in September. (After that appearance, the Washington Post noted that he was arguing a point the FBI and CIA didn`t believe was true.) If top officials had any confidence in these wares, they would still be out hawking them. Why the Feith memo is being sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee is also therefore baffling.

      It should be clear now why the Feith document needs a lot more attention: The memo is, Hayes` declarations to the contrary, cherry-picking—the selective use of intelligence. It lends credence to Seymour Hersh`s reporting in The New Yorker about political appointees ignoring career analysts and dredging out whatever suits them. This is perilous business. Making a judgment about Iraq-al-Qaida ties on the basis of the sections presented by Hayes would be like accepting a high-school biology student`s reading of a CAT scan.

      The administration`s use of intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction became a hot issue primarily because of the failure to find any such weapons in Iraq and Joe Wilson`s revelations about the non-export of uranium from Niger to Iraq. Strangely, however, there has been little inquiry into the Iraq-al-Qaida relationship. The press has had a difficult time taking this issue any further since so few reporters have good sources in the intelligence community. In Congress, an effort to push further into the issue in the Senate Intelligence Committee has been stymied by the Republican majority`s refusal to discuss how the political leadership used the intelligence it was provided with. That is a recipe for putting the blame for any Iraq-related blunders on the intelligence community, not those in the Pentagon or White House who may have misread or ignored the intelligence they were given.

      Americans were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was significantly more dangerous than any of the other two dozen or so countries that currently possess them because Saddam might on any given day give such weapons to terrorists. The danger was urgent, we were told, because the Baghdad regime had a relationship with al-Qaida. Given the costs the nation has incurred in Iraq, a conscientious review of the issue would seem to be a good investment in democratic accountability. Since neoconservatives are certain they are right about the Saddam-Bin Laden relationship, maybe they`ll join Senate Democrats in demanding a fuller airing.
      to article

      Of the many different strands of intelligence reporting provided in the annex of Douglas Feith`s letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the one that is perhaps the most interesting has received the least attention. Several reports deal with early contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida in the early 1990s that were brokered by Hassan al-Turabi, then the Islamist leader of Sudan. Al-Turabi, who engineered the creation of the National Islamic Front government with strongman Omar Bashir, helped turn his country into a magnet for jihadist terrorists and invited Osama Bin Laden and his organization to settle there. The Iraq-Sudan-al-Qaida triangle in this period is interesting because this was, in my opinion, the moment when cooperation between Saddam and Bin Laden came closest to being a reality.

      The best evidence of that was provided in the aftermath of the U.S. bombing of the al Shifa chemical plant in Khartoum in 1998. Those with long memories will recall that a chemical precursor to the nerve agent VX—a substance known by the acronym EMPTA—was found in the famous soil sample some time before the attack. Although there were claims that the chemical could have been a derivative of a pesticide, a never-refuted CIA analysis showed that EMPTA had no commercial use anywhere in the world. There are several different ways of producing VX, but what made the presence of EMPTA so interesting was, as a government briefing following the attack disclosed, EMPTA appeared only in the Iraqi production method. In addition, officials told reporters that Iraqi weapons scientists had been linked to al Shifa, and this connection was independently verified by U.N. weapons inspectors.

      While the press and many politicians dismissed the attack on al Shifa as a major blunder, no one was still paying close attention in early 2001 when Jamal Ahmad al-Fadl, a Sudanese defector from al-Qaida, took the witness stand in the East Africa embassy bombings trial in New York. Al-Fadl, the opening and star witness, testified that al-Qaida had indeed been working to produce chemical weapons in Khartoum.

      I believe that the al-Qaida-Iraq connection probably remained indirect—that Baghdad had little knowledge of Bin Laden`s investment in the Sudanese chemical weapons production. But it is strange that the Bush foreign policy team, for all its ardor to show a Bin Laden-Saddam connection, has never wanted to discuss this case at all. Perhaps the prospect of giving Bill Clinton credit for the first pre-emptive strike against terrorists who might be acquiring a weapon of mass destruction is simply too much for them.

      Daniel Benjamin, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff. He is the co-author of The Age of Sacred Terror.

      Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2092180/
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.12.03 23:52:53
      Beitrag Nr. 10.318 ()
      CANCEL THE PRIMARIES

      Time for Democrats to Rally Around Dean
      NEW YORK--Barring some unforeseeable misstep, Gov. Howard Dean will be the Democratic nominee. Patrick Buchanan thinks so. So does Al Gore, who acknowledged Dean`s soar in the polls with this endorsement: "Whether it is inspiring enthusiasm at the grassroots, and promising to remake the Democratic Party as a force for justice and progress and good in America," said President Gore, "whether it is a domestic agenda that gets our nation back on track, or whether it is protecting us against terrorists and strengthening our nation in the world, I have come to the conclusion that one candidate clearly now stands out."

      Straight up. It`s time for the increasingly irrelevant influence of centrist-right Al From`s Democratic Leadership Council to decide which is more important: keeping control of the Democrats or electing one to the presidency. Dean is the only contender with the cash, charisma and cajones to expel Generalissimo El Busho from the White House--but he needs a unified party to pull it off.

      Bush spent $100 million to beat John McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries. (Kinko`s must`ve really soaked him on those nasty faxes claiming that the Arizona senator had fathered an illegitimate child with an African-American prostitute.) Thanks to a unified Republican Party, Bush is running unopposed this time--and saving his projected $170 million war chest for a barrage of TV spots between September and November.

      "Even if Dean, the former Vermont governor, is able to match Bush dollar for dollar, he would start the general election far behind the president," reports The Christian Science Monitor. "Bush is hoarding his cash until it is clear who the Democratic nominee will be, while Dean, who has raised more than $25 million so far, has to spend furiously just to win the nomination."

      Unless he doesn`t.

      What if the other Democratic candidates came together at a joint press conference to announce that they were dropping out of the race to endorse Dean? If nothing else, cash-starved states would love it--the average primary costs taxpayers $7 million. More to the point, it would save Dean roughly $75 million--enough to close the money gap with Bush.

      A more ephemeral but bigger benefit would be the message that a unified Democratic party could send to the electorate. Canceling the primaries would convey that Democrats are no longer a clumsy amalgamation of special interests. We`re organized, it would say. Fear provides plenty of impetus for our new single-mindedness. We`re afraid of George Bush--so afraid that we ought to set aside our normal partisan bickering. Our great country has been through a lot, but it may not survive another four years of reckless wars based on lies and fought without a plan, a giant sucking sound stealing millions of jobs overseas or trillions of dollars in unaffordable tax cuts for the wealthy.

      Rich or poor, black or white, liberal or conservative, anyone who loves America must set aside their usual biases and prejudices to open their eyes to the truth: Bush is not just a Republican. Not only is his radical "neoconservative" Administration illegitimate, it is neofascist. Patriots must support the candidate with the best chance of defeating him, whoever he is. That man is Howard Dean.

      The outcome of the Democratic primaries is now a foregone conclusion. Why should Dean and his fellow Democrats waste more than $100 million between them--some estimates rise as high as $150 million--to beat each other up over relatively minor differences of policy and tone? The DNC ought to read the business pages. Ours is an age of monopoly and amalgamation. Bigger wins over better except when better happens to also be big. Divided Democrats can`t beat unified Republicans.

      Rumor has it that Ralph Nader, whom I respect deeply as a man of integrity and intelligence and for whom I voted in 1996 and 2000, is mulling over another run. Nader should take a pass this time. Just this once, let`s pull the left together. We can go back to tearing each other apart in December `04. I promise.

      (Ted Rall is the editor of the new anthology of alternative cartoons "Attitude 2: The New Subversive Social Commentary Cartoonists," containing interviews with and cartoons by 21 of America`s best cartoonists. Ordering information is available at amazon.com.)

      COPYRIGHT 2003 TED RALL

      RALL 12/9/03
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 00:10:12
      Beitrag Nr. 10.319 ()
      War das beabsichtigt vom Pentagon oder nur ein Versehen, dass die Meldung schon gestern rauskam.


      December 11, 2003
      Bush Defends Policy on Awarding Contracts to Rebuild Iraq
      By DAVID E. SANGER
      and DOUGLAS JEHL

      WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 — President Bush defended his policy on Iraq`s reconstruction today, even though it puts him in the awkward position of asking France, Germany and Russia to forgive Iraq`s debts despite being excluded from $18 billion in rebuilding projects.

      "Men and women from our country proudly wear a uniform, risk their life, to free Iraq," Mr. Bush said. "Men and women from other countries, in a broad coalition, risk their lives to free Iraq. And the expenditure of U.S. dollars will reflect the fact that U.S. troops and others risk their life."

      Mr. Bush, in a brief exchange with reporters at his last Cabinet meeting of the year, tried to put the best face on an uncomfortable situation, declaring that "we want to work with all countries" toward a free and peaceful Iraq.

      Despite the hard feelings, the White House said Mr. Bush`s personal envoy, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, would still meet next week with the leaders of several nations that were shut out of the rebuilding projects to ask that they forgive billions they are owed in Iraq`s foreign debt.

      But White House officials were still fuming about the timing and the tone of a Pentagon directive excluding France, Germany, Russia and several other countries from reconstruction projects. But White House officials have conceded that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq.

      President Jacques Chirac of France, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder of Germany and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia are among the officials Mr. Baker will meet as he travels to Europe. Though officially a private citizen, Mr. Baker will travel as if he were still in government.

      The extent of confusion over the reconstruction policy became even clearer today, as it appeared that Canada would not be shut out of the bidding on reconstruction contracts after all. Canadian officials had expressed annoyance on Wednesday, when it seemed their country would be shut out.

      But Prime Minister Jean Chrétien told reporters in Ottawa that President Bush reassured him this morning. "I had a conversation with President Bush and he wished me good luck and thanked me for Canada`s effort in Afghanistan and for the assistance to Iraq," Mr. Chrétien told reporters, according to Agence France-Presse. "President Bush said that press reports on the exclusion of Canada from Iraq`s reconstruction were not true."

      The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, was asked repeatedly today about the White House`s position on Canada and declined to say whether Mr. Bush had given explicit reassurances to Mr. Chretien, who leaves office on Friday.

      Mr. McClellan said the president "thanked the prime minister for being a friend of the United States during his tenure as prime minister and for Canadian contributions in the war on terrorism." As for reconstruction contracts in Iraq, Mr. McClellan said, "We`ll be glad to talk with Canadian officials."

      Mr. Bush said today that forgiveness of Iraqi debt "would be a significant contribution, for which we would be very grateful." But a moment later, he said: "Friendly coalition folks risk their lives. And therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that. And that`s what the U.S. taxpayers expect."

      Many countries excluded from the list reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were incensed, in part, by the Pentagon`s explanation in a memorandum that the restrictions were required "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

      The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.

      Speaking before it became clear that Canada was apparently not excluded after all, the Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that "it would be difficult" to add to the $190 million already given for reconstruction in Iraq.

      White House officials said Mr. Bush and his aides had been surprised by both the timing and the blunt wording of the Pentagon`s declaration. But they said the White House had signed off on the policy, after a committee of deputies from a number of departments and the National Security Council agreed that the most lucrative contracts must be reserved for political or military supporters.

      Those officials apparently did not realize that the memorandum, signed by Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, would appear on a Defense Department Web site hours before Mr. Bush was scheduled to ask world leaders to receive Mr. Baker, the former treasury secretary and secretary of state. Mr. Baker met with the president on Wednesday.

      Mr. Wolfowitz still enjoys the full confidence of the president, Mr. McClellan said today. "Absolutely," the White House spokesman said. "He`s doing an outstanding job to help make the world a safer and better place."

      Several of Mr. Bush`s aides said they feared that the memorandum would undercut White House efforts to repair relations with allies who had opposed the invasion of Iraq.

      White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein`s government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt.

      "I can`t imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help," a senior State Department official said late Wednesday.

      A senior administration official described Mr. Bush as "distinctly unhappy" about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their exclusion from the contracts.

      Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.

      Several of Mr. Bush`s aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.

      "What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.` " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."

      A senior official at the State Department was asked during an internal meeting on Wednesday how he expected the move to affect the responses of Russia, France and Germany to the American request. He responded, "Go ask Jim Baker," according another senior official, who said of Mr. Baker, "He`s the one who`s going to be carrying the water, and he`s going to be the one who finds out."

      In public, however, the White House defended the approach. Mr. McClellan, the White House spokesman, said "the United States and coalition countries, as well as others that are contributing forces to the efforts there, and the Iraqi people themselves are the ones that have been helping and sacrificing to build a free and prosperous nation for the Iraqi people."

      He said contracts stemming from aid to Iraq pledged by donor nations in Madrid last month would be open to broad international competition.

      Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday that while the bidding restriction applied to prime contracts, "there are very few restrictions on subcontractors."

      He also said the World Bank and International Monetary Fund "may have different, or their own, rules for how they contract."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 00:14:31
      Beitrag Nr. 10.320 ()
      December 11, 2003
      Bidding for Isolation

      Just when it looked as if there was a chance to expand international involvement in Iraq, President Bush has reversed field again and left the European allies angry, the secretary of state looking out of step, and the rest of us wondering exactly what his policy really is.

      Late last week, it seemed as if Mr. Bush had decided to seek the global support he needs to free the United States of the demands that come with its unilateral occupation of Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Brussels, expansively inviting NATO and the United Nations to join the security and reconstruction efforts. And President Jacques Chirac was sending the message that he was prepared, finally, to get involved.

      Then came the news that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had issued a decree, approved by Mr. Bush, barring any country that did not support the invasion — including France, Germany, Russia and Canada — from competing for next year`s $18.6 billion in prime reconstruction contracts. The document, printed before Mr. Powell was back in Foggy Bottom, said America`s "essential security interests" required the move. But it is hard to follow that reasoning when it means cutting out countries that might be able to bid competitively, contribute money, forgive debts and relieve American forces. The approved list of 63 nations includes Britain, Italy and Japan, but quickly tapers off to countries unlikely to help and to struggling nations like Albania and Eritrea.

      United States officials say the rules apply only to American-financed contracts. But the other sources, like the World Bank, are small. And the American portion covers such things as rebuilding the electric, transportation, communications and oil industries, and what the Wolfowitz memo delicately calls "the indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to equip the new Iraqi army."

      Now the European Union is considering whether the ban violates world trading rules. The Russians say they will refuse to write off their $8 billion in Iraqi debt. And the new Canadian government, which was supposed to have been friendly to Mr. Bush, says it will reconsider its own donations.

      No amount of preferential bidding and sweet deals for American companies — including the extra dollar or so a gallon that Halliburton charges for shipping fuel into Iraq — will repay American taxpayers for the cost of going it largely alone.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 00:25:19
      Beitrag Nr. 10.321 ()

      A Pentagon audit of Halliburton, the oil services firm once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has found the company overcharged for fuel it brought into Iraq from Kuwait, military sources said on December 11, 2003. The sources told Reuters that Kellogg Brown and Root, which won a no-bid U.S. government contract to rebuild Iraq`s oil industry, had been notified by the Pentagon`s Defense Contract Audit Agency of the overpricing. Halliburton headquarters near downtown Houston is shown May 9.

      Halliburton May Have Overcharged in Iraq -Sources
      Thu December 11, 2003 05:25 PM ET


      By Sue Pleming
      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Pentagon audit of Halliburton, the oil services firm once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has found evidence the company may have overcharged for fuel it brought into Iraq from Kuwait, military sources said on Thursday.

      The sources told Reuters that Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root, which got a no-bid U.S. government contract to rebuild Iraq`s oil industry in March, had been notified of the evidence by the Pentagon`s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).

      So far the company has clocked up $2 billion in business from the March contract.

      Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall denied the allegations and said she was confident the company would be able to stand up to any audit of its work in Iraq.

      "KBR has acted in full accordance with its fiduciary and contractual responsibilities under the contract," she said.

      She added in an e-mail response: "It would not be appropriate to discuss the specifics of the questions until our conversations with DCAA are complete."

      One military source said KBR was seeking "voluntary refunds" from the Kuwait National Petroleum Company over the import of fuel into Iraq but could not provide further details. KBR would have obtained its supplies from the Kuwait company.

      In addition to allegations of over-pricing, auditors were also looking very closely into delays in providing details of pricing, one of the sources said.

      "It`s not just a matter of over-pricing, it`s the delays," said the source, who asked not to be named.

      PRICING DELAYS

      Democratic lawmakers had raised questions over KBR`s pricing for fuel being trucked into Iraq, an oil-rich country that is suffering a fuel shortage until its refineries can be restored to full capacity.

      KBR has been bringing fuel into Iraq either from Turkey or via Kuwait and has defended its pricing by citing the high cost of security in a dangerous environment and a shortage of trucks.

      The U.S. military has been looking into ways of taking over the costly job of importing fuel into Iraq and has asked the military`s Defense Energy Support Center to look into doing the job. A decision has not yet been taken on this.

      Rep. Henry Waxman from California has complained in numerous letters to the Bush administration of alleged over-pricing, claiming Halliburton was charging about $2.64 a gallon for gasoline.

      Of the $2 billion allocated to KBR so far, about $1.2 billion has gone toward paying for oil supplies for the Iraqi people, according to the Army Corps of Engineers Web site.

      Of that amount, $90 million has been paid out of seized Iraqi assets and $825 million has come from the Development Fund for Iraq, which was approved by the U.N.

      An Army Corps of Engineers spokesman said most of the funds to pay for fuel had intentionally been drawn from Iraqi coffers rather than from money made available by Congress, where criticism has been strongest over Halliburton`s work in Iraq.

      Several government agencies are closely monitoring Halliburton`s performance in Iraq and the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, is set to release a report next month on U.S. government contracts in Iraq.

      Halliburton`s no-competition contract is set to be replaced by two separate deals to repair Iraq`s oil sector. After several delays in awarding them, the Army is due to announce a decision on those contracts, worth $2 billion, by mid-January.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 08:48:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.322 ()
      Allied cluster bombs blamed for 1,000 deaths in Iraq
      By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
      12 December 2003


      More than 1,000 civilians were killed or wounded by cluster bombs used by American and British forces in the invasion of Iraq, and Iraqis are still being killed and maimed by the munitions months after they were dropped.

      In March and April, cluster bombs used in populated areas were responsible for more civilian casualties than any other weapon, said a report published today. On one day, 31 March, 33 civilians were killed and 109 injured by the bomblets dropped on of Hillah, 60 miles south of Baghdad.

      The report, by Human Rights Watch (HRW), says American and British forces used nearly 13,000 cluster bombs, often in populated areas. The weapons, packed with small bomblets, some with time delays, have a failure rate of 5 per cent and the unexploded bomblets can lie in the ground for months until set off by a passer-by or a vehicle. Experience from other conflicts, including the US-led war in Afghanistan, has shown the unexploded, yellow bombs attract curious children.

      Kenneth Roth, HRW`s executive director, said: "Coalition forces tried to avoid killing Iraqis who weren`t in combat. But the deaths of hundreds of civilians could have been prevented. Every death of a civilian in wartime is a terrible tragedy but focusing on the exact number of deaths misses the point. The point is that the US military should not have been using these methods of warfare.

      "The way cluster bombs were used in Iraq represents a big step backwards for the US military. US ground forces need to learn the lesson the air force seems to have adopted: cluster munitions cannot be used in populated areas without huge loss of civilian life."

      At least nine nations have used cluster bombs, which do not discriminate between military and civilian targets. In April, the Ministry of Defence said that it had dropped 50 cluster munitions in Iraq, leaving 800 unexploded bomblets. Independent figures suggest that British forces used 70 air-launched cluster bombs and 2,100 ground-launched.

      Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, had defended their use, saying they were "perfectly legal" and "entirely legitimate".

      But critics say the weapons were routinely used during the invasion in populated areas, rather than in any defensive capacity or against enemy soldiers. The HRW report says its researchers visited 10 Iraqi cities between 29 April and 1 June, and found neighbourhoods littered with unexploded bomblets. It estimates that the 13,000 cluster bombs dropped contained two million bomblets.

      In a hospital in Hillah, a doctor told the HRW researchers that 90 per cent of the casualties he had treated during the war were injured by cluster munitions. Last night, Bonnie Docherty, a HRW spokeswoman in Washington, said that civilians were still being killed by unexploded or "dud" cluster munitions dropped during the war. "The dud problem is big, particularly given that the munitions were used in populated areas," she said.

      There have been various moves to regulate the use of cluster munitions. Glenda Jackson MP, a former Labour minister, told The Independent that she had sought information from the MoD on whether it knew where unexploded cluster munitions were, and what was being done to prevent them injuring civilians. "The response was very general," she said.

      A meeting of UN bodies and NGOs in November issued a statement that read: "Routinely, an estimated 5 per cent to 30 per cent of cluster munitions fail to explode ... either penetrating the ground or remaining on the surface. Those under ground can impede the safe cultivation of land ... This is the case in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam where they still pose a terrible threat, 30 years after the end of conflicts."

      During the war in Afghanistan in 2001, US forces had to broadcast messages to Afghan civilians who were mistaking the bright yellow munitions for humanitarian aid packages, which were the same size and colour.

      **An American soldier was killed and 14 wounded when a suicide car bomb exploded outside a military base near Ramadi, west of Baghdad. In central Baghdad, the main American headquarters was also attacked with three or four blasts rocking the compound around midnight.
      12 December 2003 08:47



      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 08:51:01
      Beitrag Nr. 10.323 ()
      DISPATCHES: THE MILITARY
      Marines Plan to Use Velvet Glove More Than Iron Fist in Iraq
      By MICHAEL R. GORDON

      CAMP PENDLETON, Calif., Dec. 10 — No force has a tougher reputation than the United States Marines. But the marines who are headed to Iraq this spring say they intend to avoid the get-tough tactics that have been used in recent weeks by Army units.

      Marine commanders say they do not plan to surround villages with barbed wire, demolish buildings used by insurgents or detain relatives of suspected guerrillas. The Marines do not plan to fire artillery at suspected guerrilla mortar positions, an Army tactic that risks harming civilians. Nor do the Marines want to risk civilian casualties by calling in bombing strikes on the insurgents, as has happened most recently in Afghanistan.

      "I do not envision using that tactic," said Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, the commanding general of the First Marine Expeditionary Force, who led the Marine force that fought its way to Baghdad and will command the more than 20,000 marines who will return to Iraq in March. "It would have to be a rare incident that transcends anything that we have seen in the country to make that happen."

      The increase in guerrilla attacks on American troops in Iraq has prompted Army units in the so-called Sunni triangle in central Iraq to adopt a hard-nosed approach — and spawned a behind-the-scenes debate within the American military about the best way to quash the insurgents.

      While some Army commanders insist the hard-nosed tactics have been successful in reducing enemy attacks, other military officers believe they are alienating Iraqis and thus depriving American commanders of the public support and human intelligence needed to ferret out threats.

      In an interview at his headquarters at Camp Pendleton, General Conway was careful not to criticize the Army. Still, he indicated that he plans to pursue a very different strategy.

      "I don`t want to condemn what people are doing," General Conway said. "I think they are doing what they think they have to do. I`ll simply say that I think until we can win the population over and they can give us those indigenous intelligence reports that we`re prolonging the process."

      The Marines, General Conway says, will try to design their raids to be "laser precise," focused on the enemy with a maximum effort made to avoid endangering or humiliating Iraqi civilians.

      After American forces invaded Iraq last spring, United States marines fought some of the fiercest battles of the war at Nasiriya and at a mosque in eastern Baghdad. After Saddam Hussein was ousted, the Marines assumed the responsibility for stabilizing south-central Iraq, where most of the inhabitants are Shiite Muslims who were persecuted under Mr. Hussein and were glad to see him gone. In contrast to the Army`s experience, no marine was killed in action after mid-April.

      The Marines insist their success also reflected their energetic efforts to work with the local population, an effort guided by their "Small Wars" manual, which derives from their 20th-century interventions in Central America.

      There were several parallels between the Marine experience in southern Iraq and how the Army`s 101st Airborne Division has approached northern Iraq — and many differences from the aggressive tactics of the Army`s Fourth Infantry Division and other Army units in the Sunni triangle.

      On their return to Iraq now, the Marines will be dealing with a much more challenging area which includes restive towns like Falluja, west of Baghdad.

      In that region, American military units have come and gone so often that they have had little time to understand their surroundings. Falluja was initially occupied by the 82nd Airborne Division, which was soon replaced by the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, which was in turn replaced by the Second Brigade of the Army`s Third Infantry Division. In early summer, the Third Infantry Division had some success in helping to establish the local police. But it returned to the United States, handing the town back to the Third Armored Cavalry, which was soon replaced by the 82nd Airborne.

      In Iraqi society, which emphasizes personal relationships, the constant rotations have made a difficult job that much harder. So have some tactics: in April, soldiers from the 82nd Airborne based themselves in Falluja and were fired on during an anti-American demonstration. The troops fired back. Iraqis say 17 people were killed and more than 70 wounded, many of them civilians who never fired on the American troops. The 82nd Airborne has disputed that account.

      Starting next March, nine battalions of marines will be deployed. In addition to infantry, the Marine force will include light armored reconnaissance units, engineers and attack helicopters. The Marines will also take command of a brigade from the Army`s First Infantry Division, which is also going to Iraq in the spring.

      Success, Marine commanders say, will ultimately depend winning the trust of a wary Iraqi population. The measure of progress, General Conway says, will not be the number of American raids or enemy dead. It will be tips about potential threats that are provided to the Marines by ordinary Iraqis.

      "The program we used in the south was a maturing Iraqi police, supported by an Army M.P. company in each of the cities, supported by a Marine quick reaction force," he said, defining this as a Marine infantry battalion. "That worked very well for us. That is the model we intend to use."

      Toward this end, the Marines are planning to work with the Iraqi police and also train and equip an Iraqi military force to take on the insurgents. "We intend to create an Iraqi Marine battalion, maybe a brigade," General Conway said.

      Marine commanders have stressed the need to be sensitive to local traditions. Marines here have been told to remove their sunglasses and look Iraqis in the eye when they speak with them. A select group of marines also been selected for intensive Arabic language training. The marines will use Iraqi, not American names, to delineate the zones assigned to specific Marine units and will try to align them with Iraqi administrative districts. To limit the disruption to the local populations, the Marines also plan to set up their bases outside of Iraqi cities.

      But the marines at Camp Pendleton are also prepared to fight.

      "We carry an embedded offensive capability in every convoy," said Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis, the commander of the First Marine Division. "To us you don`t drive on through, you stop, you hunt them down and you nail them."

      "We will try to go and restore a degree of civility," said General Mattis. "If they choose to fight, they are going to regret it, but we also believe that part of the physicians` oath that says first do no harm. If to kill a terrorist we have got to kill eight innocent people, you don`t kill them."

      General Conway added: "We will be as vicious with the resistance as we have to be. It is not that we intend to go in and coddle everyone. Our marines just have to be able to be aggressive and hostile one moment and the next moment be able to play soccer with the kids."

      General Conway said, for instance, that if marines fire artillery shells, they will be special illumination rounds to light up terrain, not destroy targets.

      "Right now, in some of the sectors they are firing artillery missions against radar hits," General Conway said. "That will not be our method of operation."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 08:54:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.324 ()
      December 12, 2003
      Cutting James Baker`s Ties

      Last week, the White House summoned James Baker III, the Bush family`s persuader of last resort, back to public service. His new portfolio is the diplomatically ticklish and economically crucial problem of restructuring Iraq`s currently unpayable official debts. As a former secretary of both the State and Treasury Departments and a public and private Middle East deal maker, he is in many ways a supremely qualified choice. Yet as it stands right now, Mr. Baker is far too tangled in a matrix of lucrative private business relationships that leave him looking like a potentially interested party in any debt-restructuring formula. The obvious solution is for him to sever his ties to all firms doing work directly or indirectly related to Iraq.

      Mr. Baker is senior counselor to the Carlyle Group, a global investment company that has done business with the Saudi royal family. He is also a partner in Baker Botts, a Houston law firm whose client list includes Halliburton. Baker Botts has an office in Riyadh and a strategic alliance with another firm in the United Arab Emirates, and it deploys Mr. Baker`s name and past government service on its Web site to solicit Middle East business. It is inappropriate for Mr. Baker to remain attached to these businesses, whose clients and potential future clients could be affected by the decisions made about Iraq`s official debt.

      Iraq`s overall debt is estimated at something over $100 billion, with another $100 billion or so owed in reparations. Just servicing that debt, without paying back any principal, looks beyond the means of a country whose oil revenues amounted to only $13 billion in the last full year before the war.

      Finding a way to persuade creditor nations like France, Russia and the Persian Gulf Arab states to forgive part of Iraq`s debt and restructure the rest is critical to the administration`s foreign policy. It is no wonder the president turned to an experienced hand like Mr. Baker, whose legal maneuvering in Florida did so much to secure his hold on the White House in 2000. Yet before any of this can happen, Mr. Baker must show that he will be free of any private business entanglements that could raise legitimate questions about his recommendations. If the administration needs a political reason for doing the right thing, it need only look at the deep suspicion raised about the Iraqi construction contracts doled out to Halliburton, a company that was run by Dick Cheney before he became vice president.

      Mr. Baker has agreed to forgo earnings from clients with obvious connections to Iraqi debts, a process that Baker Botts attorneys would supervise for the law firm and that the White House would oversee for the Carlyle Group. That is not good enough. Businesses like Carlyle and Baker Botts make their living by flaunting their connections to the politically powerful. To perform honorably in his new public job, Mr. Baker must give up these two private ones.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 08:55:52
      Beitrag Nr. 10.325 ()
      December 12, 2003
      OP-ED COLUMNIST
      A Deliberate Debacle
      By PAUL KRUGMAN

      James Baker sets off to negotiate Iraqi debt forgiveness with our estranged allies. And at that very moment the deputy secretary of defense releases a "Determination and Findings" on reconstruction contracts that not only excludes those allies from bidding, but does so with highly offensive language. What`s going on?

      Maybe I`m giving Paul Wolfowitz too much credit, but I don`t think this was mere incompetence. I think the administration`s hard-liners are deliberately sabotaging reconciliation.

      Surely this wasn`t just about reserving contracts for administration cronies. Yes, Halliburton is profiteering in Iraq — will apologists finally concede the point, now that a Pentagon audit finds overcharging? And reports suggest a scandal in Bechtel`s vaunted school-repair program.

      But I`ve always found claims that profiteering was the motive for the Iraq war — as opposed to a fringe benefit — as implausible as claims that the war was about fighting terrorism. There are deeper motives here.

      Mr. Wolfowitz`s official rationale for the contract policy is astonishingly cynical: "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts" — future efforts? — and "should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members." Translation: we can bribe other nations to send troops.

      But I doubt whether even Mr. Wolfowitz believes that. The last year, from the failure to get U.N. approval for the war to the retreat over the steel tariff, has been one long lesson in the limits of U.S. economic leverage. Mr. Wolfowitz knows as well as the rest of us that allies who could really provide useful help won`t be swayed by a few lucrative contracts.

      If the contracts don`t provide useful leverage, however, why torpedo a potential reconciliation between America and its allies? Perhaps because Mr. Wolfowitz`s faction doesn`t want such a reconciliation.

      These are tough times for the architects of the "Bush doctrine" of unilateralism and preventive war. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their fellow Project for a New American Century alumni viewed Iraq as a pilot project, one that would validate their views and clear the way for further regime changes. (Hence Mr. Wolfowitz`s line about "future efforts.")

      Instead, the venture has turned sour — and many insiders see Mr. Baker`s mission as part of an effort by veterans of the first Bush administration to extricate George W. Bush from the hard-liners` clutches. If the mission collapses amid acrimony over contracts, that`s a good thing from the hard-liners` point of view.

      Bear in mind that there is plenty of evidence of policy freebooting by administration hawks, such as the clandestine meetings last summer between Pentagon officials working for Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy and planning — and a key player in the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat — and Iranians of dubious repute. Remember also that blowups by the hard-liners, just when the conciliators seem to be getting somewhere, have been a pattern.

      There was a striking example in August. It seemed that Colin Powell had finally convinced President Bush that if we aren`t planning a war with North Korea, it makes sense to negotiate. But then John Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control, whose role is more accurately described as "the neocons` man at State," gave a speech about Kim Jong Il, declaring: "To give in to his extortionist demands would only encourage him and, perhaps more ominously, other would-be tyrants."

      In short, this week`s diplomatic debacle probably reflects an internal power struggle, with hawks using the contracts issue as a way to prevent Republican grown-ups from regaining control of U.S. foreign policy. And initial indications are that the ploy is working — that the hawks have, once again, managed to tap into Mr. Bush`s fondness for moralistic, good-versus-evil formulations. "It`s very simple," Mr. Bush said yesterday. "Our people risk their lives. . . . Friendly coalition folks risk their lives. . . . The contracting is going to reflect that."

      In the end the Bush doctrine — based on delusions of grandeur about America`s ability to dominate the world through force — will collapse. What we`ve just learned is how hard and dirty the doctrine`s proponents will fight against the inevitable.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 08:57:10
      Beitrag Nr. 10.326 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 09:00:47
      Beitrag Nr. 10.327 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 09:02:29
      Beitrag Nr. 10.328 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Bush Defends Barring Foes Of War From Iraq Business
      Concerns Raised by Republicans As Well as Germany and France

      By Robin Wright and Dana Milbank
      Washington Post Staff Writers
      Friday, December 12, 2003; Page A01


      President Bush yesterday fiercely defended his decision to bar France, Germany, Russia and Canada from Iraq reconstruction contracts, defying a furious outcry from allies and even objections from GOP and conservative leaders.

      U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan branded the U.S. policy "unfortunate," echoing protests from allies such as Germany and France and claims that the Bush administration move may be violating international law. At home, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) registered his concerns, and other Republicans on Capitol Hill expressed puzzlement that the White House decided to support a policy it rejected only months ago.

      Diplomats and foreign policy analysts, meanwhile, warned that the policy, which bars countries that did not support the invasion of Iraq from getting prime contracts there, could crimp or cripple two major diplomatic missions: winning international forgiveness of Iraq`s $120 billion in debt, and rallying U.N. support for the Bush administration`s plan for the political transition in that country. The timing is particularly awkward because former secretary of state James A. Baker III is about to begin a diplomatic mission to recruit more international help for Iraq.

      But Bush was unyielding in defending the policy. "It`s very simple," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting. "Our people risked their lives. Friendly coalition folks risked their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that, and that`s what the U.S. taxpayers expect."

      Bush said even a decision by countries such as France and Germany to forgive Iraqi debt would not enable them to compete for the contracts in Iraq. And he was derisive when asked about German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder`s remark that "international law must apply here," saying: "International law? I better call my lawyer; he didn`t bring that up to me."

      Even as Bush took a hard line in public, there were signs that he was working privately to calm the furor. He called Jean Chretien on the Canadian prime minister`s last day in office and, according to Chretien, said he would seek to exempt Canada from the new policy. "He told me he wasn`t happy we were on the list," Chretien told reporters in Ottawa. "He said we would take steps so that we weren`t on the list any more."

      White House press secretary Scott McClellan suggested countries that forgive Iraqi debts could be added to the list of those eligible to bid. "If countries want to join in our efforts in Iraq," he said, "circumstances can change, and we`ll make that very clear."

      Baker will travel to France, Russia, Germany and other countries next week to ask the governments there to forgive part of Iraq`s crushing national debt. France and Russia, which are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and carry major Iraqi debts, are particularly crucial.

      Bush told reporters yesterday that the one way these countries could help make the world more secure and help Iraq emerge as a peaceful country is through debt relief.

      But Russia is now signaling it may not help restructure or forgive about $8 billion in Iraqi debt, while France will tell Baker next week that it will discuss the debt only after the installation of a recognized Iraqi government that can assume economic and other commitments, French envoys said.

      Washington looks hypocritical to some of its allies, analysts said.

      "We`re asking others to forgive billions [of dollars in debt] and yet have no role in reconstruction. We`re telling them, `You make the sacrifices and we get all the goodies,` " said James Steinberg, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution and deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration.

      U.N. diplomats are cautioning that the ban will make it harder to get a concrete statement of support from the Security Council for the U.S. exit strategy when an Iraqi delegation presents the transition timetable and plan at the United Nations next week. Annan, speaking in Berlin, called the U.S. decision "not unifying."

      "Domestically this works, but diplomatically it makes it very tough," added a U.N. diplomat in New York. "The United States has been saying for the last couple of weeks that we have to look forward and, whatever you thought of the war, now is not the time to fight past battles but to look to the future to help the Iraqis. But the [policy] does exactly the opposite -- it rehashes the past and penalizes people."

      "It doesn`t make [support] impossible, but it makes broad support for Iraqis at the U.N. much more difficult," he said.

      On the Hill, Republicans kept their distance from the contracts policy.

      Frist said on CNBC`s "Capital Report" that he had spoken to the administration to express his reservations. "We have to remember that many of these countries that are being denied these contracts are supporting us elsewhere in the world, maybe fighting HIV-AIDS in Africa, maybe in Afghanistan, and that`s why I hope that there`ll be some moderation of the policy as we go forward," he said. Frist, who was not told in advance about the contracts policy, said he "expressed concern" to the Bush administration.

      The White House vigorously opposed a similar policy when lawmakers tried to add it to legislation earlier this year, according to congressional officials. In April, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice personally lobbied Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) to drop from a Pentagon spending bill a proposal to block France and Germany from Iraq contracts.

      Part of the reason for the White House objection was to speed the spending bill through Congress. But senior Republican Senate aides said the administration also objected to the policy itself, both in April and again this fall when GOP senators sought to add similar provisions to Bush`s request for $87 billion in new spending, mostly for Iraq.

      "They didn`t like it. They thought it was reactionary," one aide said.

      The White House came under scathing criticism even from supporters, who called the policy a blunder. In a memorandum distributed to U.S. opinion leaders, neoconservative writers William Kristol and Robert Kagan said the policy should be abandoned sooner rather than later to minimize the diplomatic damage.

      "A truly wise American administration would have opened the bidding to all comers, regardless of their opposition to the war -- as a way of buying those countries into the Iraq effort, building a little goodwill for the future and demonstrating to the world a little magnanimity. But instead of being smart, clever or magnanimous, the Bush administration has done a dumb thing," they wrote.

      Prominent foreign policy analysts condemned either the policy or the timing of the ban, which came on the eve of Baker`s global tour to muster greater support for rebuilding Iraq.

      "If ever we wanted to ensure that the operation in Iraq will be an all-American show, this has done it," said James Hoge, editor of Foreign Affairs magazine. "It`s mystifying at a time it seemed the Bush administration was moderating some of its tougher rhetoric and looking to patch up the transatlantic relationship -- and then this. It`s one more mark of inconsistency to crop up in Bush foreign policy at an inopportune time."

      Bush, however, stood firmly behind Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who wrote the memo announcing the contracting policy. "He`s doing an outstanding job to help make the world a safer and better place," Bush said.

      Staff writers Thomas E. Ricks and DeNeen Brown contributed to this report.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 09:04:09
      Beitrag Nr. 10.329 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Iraqi Protesters Oust Appointed Governor
      Demonstrators Defy U.S. Occupation With Demand for an Election

      By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
      Washington Post Foreign Service
      Friday, December 12, 2003; Page A39


      HILLA, Iraq, Dec. 11 -- The demonstrators converged on the provincial governor`s office on Sunday with banners, sleeping mats, cooking pots and a simple demand: Iskander Jawad Witwit should quit.

      After three days and nights of continuous protests, Witwit did just that. But the demonstrators have refused to budge.

      As soon as Witwit resigned, the local representative of the U.S. occupation authority appointed a former Iraqi air force officer as acting governor. To the protesters, that was unacceptable. The new governor, they insisted, should be chosen not by an American but by Iraqis -- through an election.

      "Yes, yes for elections!" shouted the protesters, a collection of students, clerics and middle-aged professionals whose ranks swelled to more than 1,000 on Thursday. "No, no to appointment!"

      The protesters have pledged to continue their sit-in outside the governor`s office -- they have erected tents and dug latrines -- until their demand is met. Leaders of Hilla`s largest labor unions have vowed to hold a general strike starting Saturday in support of elections.

      Local leaders described the passionate but peaceful demonstration in this predominantly Shiite Muslim city as a preview of what U.S. occupiers will face if they follow through with a plan to select a provisional Iraqi government through regional caucuses instead of general elections. Although elections have become an increasingly popular rallying cry in Shiite-dominated central and southern Iraq, the protest here is the first indication that mainstream Shiites are willing to take to the streets to press the issue, adding a volatile new element to the country`s impending political transition.

      "It`s been peaceful in Hilla until now, but if the coalition forces keep refusing what the people want, it will become a big problem that they will not be able to control," said Mohammed Kiflawi Abboud, chairman of the council that governs Hilla province. "Everyone will oppose the Americans."

      Protest leaders said they have been energized by recent statements from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq`s most influential Shiite leader, calling for the provisional government to be elected. Sistani has rejected the Bush administration`s plan to select a national assembly through caucuses in each of the country`s 18 provinces, saying it does not give Iraqis enough of a role in the transition.

      While Sistani does not appear to have weighed in on the subject of Witwit`s replacement, his pronouncements on the overall political transition have been interpreted in Hilla as a license to engage in civil disobedience.

      "Ayatollah Sistani has called for elections," said Hussein Abdelrazzak Mehdi, a high school teacher and seminary student who was one of the protest organizers. "We want to ensure his words are followed."

      Since Sistani voiced his opposition to the American transition plan, members of Iraq`s U.S.-appointed Governing Council have been considering ways to amend the caucus system.

      Over the past two weeks, other Shiite leaders and even several influential Sunni Muslims -- a rival minority that had long ruled Iraq -- have urged the Governing Council to call for elections. But the council has been reluctant to do so, largely because of pressure from the Bush administration and because members believe caucuses are the best way to protect their own political interests. Some members even want the council, which U.S. officials are seeking to dissolve on June 30, to remain as a second legislative body in the provisional government.

      Hoping to find a middle ground that will protect the interests of the council and the Bush administration while still appeasing Shiites, several members are advocating another round of caucuses to reconstitute some local and provincial councils. "We recognize there are problems with some of the local councils, and we think some limited elections can address this issue," one council member said.

      But if Hilla, a city of about 500,000 people about 60 miles south of Baghdad, is any indication, that approach will not fly. People here, from professors to roadside vendors, say elections are the only legitimate way to choose their governor and a provisional government.

      "President George Bush promised us democracy" said Kadhim Abbas, the owner of a carpet factory, who brought three dozen employees -- women in head-to-toe black veils -- to the protest. "How can you have democracy without elections?"

      Although they would have significant influence over the process, many members of Hilla`s provincial council also said they objected to the caucuses, raising doubts about whether the Americans will be able to find willing local partners to back their transition plan.

      "We don`t want to participate," said Bassim Jalal Ibrahim, the council`s deputy chairman. "We regard the caucuses as illegitimate."

      Ibrahim said the council favors holding elections to select a new governor and to pick representatives for the transitional assembly. "I can`t understand why the Americans don`t want elections," he said. "We deserve to have them."

      The Bush administration has resisted elections, contending that the absence of voter rolls and an electoral law would make a nationwide ballot time-consuming. Officials also argue that a hasty election would be vulnerable to violence and manipulation by religious militants and loyalists of former president Saddam Hussein.

      Ibrahim and other members of the Hilla council insist a national database that is used to distribute monthly food rations could serve as a voter roll, enabling occupation authorities to hold a quick ballot. "It would be very easy to hold elections," said Hamid Ibrahim Awadi, a lawyer and council member. "We could do it right away."

      The 22-member provincial council, comprising representatives from professional associations and community organizations, is only an advisory body. Power over the police and other government institutions rests with the governor, who rules at the behest of the occupation authority.

      A day before Witwit resigned, a commission purging Baath Party members from government ordered his dismissal. Council members said they discovered documents linking him to Hussein`s intelligence service. He also had been criticized for appointing two of his brothers and several other relatives to top posts in the provincial government.

      His replacement, Emad Lefteh, insisted there would be no way to hold elections right away. Sitting behind the governor`s desk with aides at his side, he said the occupation authority "should not bend to a few people protesting outside."

      "If we have elections now, our enemies, the terrorists and the extremists, will take advantage of the situation," he said.

      An official with the occupation authority in Hilla said Lefteh had proven himself to be an effective administrator in his previous job as mayor of Hilla. "That`s what this province needs," the official said.

      The official ruled out holding elections. "I`m not going to compromise on security, and we do not respond to mobs," the official said.

      As the afternoon wore on, the protesters prayed, ate lunch out of large metal vats and brought in an interpreter. Using a megaphone, he addressed a dozen American and Polish soldiers standing guard on the roof of the governor`s office.

      "Coalition forces, don`t be worried," he said in English. "We are here in peace. All we want is democracy."

      "That`s what they promised us," Jabbar Zaid, a university student, said after the interpreter finished. "All we want is what they promised."



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 09:05:41
      Beitrag Nr. 10.330 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Boomerang Diplomacy




      Friday, December 12, 2003; Page A36


      YES, OF COURSE, President Bush`s latest initiative on Iraq is arrogant and self-defeating. But that`s not the most remarkable aspect of his decision to exclude companies from a number of countries that are important U.S. allies from bidding on reconstruction contracts. After all, a spiteful unilateralism has characterized the administration`s handling of postwar Iraq all along, and it`s an important reason why the United States must now face daunting military and political challenges nearly on its own. What`s really strange about the administration`s latest slap at Germany, France, Canada and other countries it seems intent on treating as adversaries is that it reverses at a stroke months of patient efforts by that same administration to overcome the divisions its Iraq policy created.

      Mr. Bush recently delivered a carefully prepared speech in London extolling the value of international institutions and alliances. In New York, he held a meticulously orchestrated meeting with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at which the two men agreed to put their disputes behind them. Last week Secretary of State Colin L. Powell appealed to the NATO alliance to involve itself more deeply in Iraq, and was pleased to hear no immediate dissent from Berlin or Paris. Yet now the president has consented to a policy that goes out of its way to reopen the wounds of the prewar debate. When told yesterday that Mr. Schroeder believed Mr. Bush`s contract decision might violate international law, the president responded with a sarcastic gibe: "International law? I better call my lawyer." Like other puerile taunts delivered by administration officials, the president`s words will merely serve to further erode support for his policies in countries that historically have stood with the United States.

      The incoherence of Mr. Bush`s action was matched by the hamhanded manner of its announcement. The news of what amounts to a significant diplomatic rebuff was disclosed not by the White House or State Department but by the deputy secretary of defense -- and it took by surprise not just the governments concerned but senior officials of Congress and the White House itself. Mr. Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac learned of their slaps on the same day Mr. Bush called them to ask for their help in forgiving Iraq`s foreign debt -- a large part of which is held by the very governments now excluded from reconstruction work. Once again the president has allowed his Pentagon to conduct his foreign policy -- and to do so with a brusqueness seemingly calculated to offend.

      Mr. Bush and his Pentagon hawks may believe they are meting out just punishment to countries that have opposed the mission in Iraq. But there will be little cost to Germany, France, Canada or Russia. Instead, the real price will be paid by Iraqis and the American soldiers and civilians trying to help them. They will have to continue an uphill struggle to stabilize and rebuild Iraq without substantial support from many of the world`s richest and most powerful nations. Efforts to repair U.S. relations with Europe and sinking American prestige around the world will be set back once again. And what will Mr. Bush have gained? Better ask his lawyer.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 09:07:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.331 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Greenspan`s Finest Hour?


      By Robert J. Samuelson

      Friday, December 12, 2003; Page A37


      It may ultimately be said of Alan Greenspan that he enjoyed his finest hour when the public admired him least. Let`s recall that only a few months ago the shaky economic outlook inspired fears of deflation -- a general decline in prices caused by too much supply (of unemployed workers, unused fiber-optics and lots more) chasing too little demand. Now the U.S. economy is leading a global recovery. Greenspan and the Federal Reserve deserve much -- if not all -- of the credit for this turnaround.

      Of course, they aren`t getting it. Greenspan is no longer the hero of the 1990s, when he was celebrated for engineering the longest boom in U.S. history. Just the opposite: The bursting of the stock market bubble spawned resentment that he had contributed to runaway speculation.

      Despite its recovery, the market has lost roughly $5 trillion (30 percent) since its March 2000 peak, and despite economic revival, the 8.7 million unemployed workers in November were still 3.2 million more than in April 2000.

      Griping is understandable -- and shortsighted. By creating the Fed in 1913, Congress aimed to avoid banking crises. In an era before government deposit insurance, one bank`s loan losses could trigger runs on other banks. There was the related problem of seasonal surges in loan demand, tied to farmers` needs to finance their crops. These surges could lead to higher interest rates, loan defaults and panics. The Fed was supposed to create an "elastic" currency that would stabilize the economy. It would supply funds to solvent banks threatened by panics, as well as accommodating sharp jumps in credit demand.

      Unfortunately, the Fed`s history is mainly defined by two colossal blunders, says economist Allan Meltzer, author of "A History of the Federal Reserve."

      The first was the Great Depression of the 1930s, when it failed to provide sufficient money to prevent a series of banking panics that devastated the economy. In 1933 the unemployment rate averaged 25 percent. The Fed erred, says Meltzer, because it followed a theory (named "real bills``) that called for it to create money only in response to higher loan demand; because loan demand had collapsed, the Fed was too passive.

      The second blunder was the recent Great Inflation, when the Fed flooded the economy with too much money. From 1961 to 1980, inflation jumped from 1 percent to 13.5 percent. The Fed embraced mistaken Keynesian doctrines that the aggressive easing of credit could cut unemployment.

      What Greenspan & Co. may have done is to avoid a third big blunder. So much was beginning to go wrong with the economy at the end of 2000 -- and the rest of the world was so dependent on the U.S. economy -- that a timid reaction from the Fed might have been fatal. It might have further weakened both spending and spirits. But the Fed responded forcefully. It cut interest rates 11 times in 2001 and once again in 2002 and 2003. The Fed funds rate (on overnight loans between banks) went from 6.5 percent in late 2000 to its present 1 percent, the lowest since 1958.

      None of this was preordained. The European Central Bank was more cautious. It cut rates much less and more slowly than the Fed. Greenspan & Co. seemed to be operating mostly by a seat-of-the-pants judgment that: (a) inflation wasn`t a present danger and (b) repairing the damage from the bubble economy required a long period of easy credit. Whatever the rationale, the Fed`s low short-term interest rates influenced the decline of rates on mortgages and bonds, which in turn rescued the economy.

      Home building, home sales and housing prices -- all sensitive to mortgage rates -- jolted upward. Homeowners refinanced mortgages at lower rates and (often) higher amounts. Through new loans or home sales, Americans raised $421 billion of cash in 2001, $599 billion in 2002 and $358 billion in the first half of 2003, estimates Mark Zandi of consulting firm Economy.com Inc. The extra cash bolstered consumer spending. Meanwhile, low rates also reduced corporate debt burdens and helped developing countries borrow more easily. Some rate declines have been stunning. At their peak in 2002, bonds for developing countries were about nine percentage points higher than U.S. Treasuries; now they`re only about four points higher.

      This story requires two caveats.

      First, the economy`s revival also has other causes: big tax cuts, innate American optimism, the ability of U.S. companies to cut costs and improve profits.

      Second, the revival still faces many threats: the fading effects of tax cuts and lower interest rates (the mortgage-refinancing boom), cautiousness in corporate America, high levels of consumer debt and weak economies in Europe, Japan and Latin America.

      The avoidance of calamity may not seem like a big deal, but it is. The Fed can never deliver the economy into paradise, but it can, through well-intentioned mistakes, push it into purgatory.

      The hazards of the post-bubble economy were sufficiently unfamiliar to risk a major miscalculation that might have severely damaged the U.S. and global economies. If Greenspan has prevented that, people may not notice now -- but history will.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 09:09:55
      Beitrag Nr. 10.332 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 14:40:23
      Beitrag Nr. 10.333 ()
      Pentagon launches Halliburton inquiry
      Mark Tran
      Friday December 12, 2003
      The Guardian

      The Pentagon has begun an extensive inquiry into Halliburton`s activities in Iraq after evidence emerged that the oil services company, which was formerly run by the US vice president, Dick Cheney, overcharged the US government by as much as $120m (£69m).

      Halliburton has not been accused of wrongdoing, but this is the first time Pentagon officials have believed that major contracts for the war in Iraq have been mishandled.

      The possible overcharging occurred under two separate contracts awarded to Halliburton`s Kellogg Brown & Root division.

      In one case, Pentagon auditors found evidence that KBR may have overcharged the Army Corp of Engineers for petrol by $61m.

      Auditors say that KBR did not profit, but had overpaid for supplies from Kuwaiti companies, pushing up the final price. The Pentagon says KBR failed to adequately evaluate the costs and operations of its Kuwait subcontractor.

      The other case of overcharging involved the supply of mess halls, and the Pentagon said it had found evidence that KBR may have overestimated the cost of catering by $67m.

      Investigators at the Defence Contract Audit Agency are now examining all aspects of financial controls and subcontracting arrangements by KBR in Iraq, with around 20 auditors having been assigned to the job.

      In a statement, David Lesar, the chief executive of Halliburton, said: "We welcome a thorough review of any and all of our government contracts."

      Mr Lesar defended the company`s performance, and said that the questions were "a normal part of the audit process and not a condemnation of KBR processes".

      However, Democrats - who have criticised the lack of competition for contracts in Iraq - were quick to lay into the Bush administration.

      "We`ve recently learned what many Americans have suspected for a long time - special interest contributor Halliburton is overcharging the American taxpayers," Howard Dean, the Democratic presidential contender, told the Washington Post.

      "Now this president is preventing entire nations from bidding on contracts in Iraq so that his campaign contributors can continue to overcharge the American taxpayers."

      Mr Dean was referring to a White House decision earlier this week to block firms from countries opposed to the conflict in Iraq from bidding for contracts, worth $18.6bn, to rebuild the country.

      The move caused predictable outrage in the countries affected, which include France, Germany and Russia. However, companies from Britain and Italy - which were coalition partners - are eligible for contracts.

      Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, has urged the administration to reverse the decision, which he called "unfortunate", and the EU has raised the possibility that the US move violates World Trade Organisation rules.

      The discovery that Halliburton could have overcharged the US government is certain to add to the arguments raging over Iraq`s reconstruction. Halliburton has been under intense scrutiny ever since it was awarded a no-bid contract to provide billions of dollars in services in Iraq.

      Critics of the Bush administration say that Halliburton has benefited from White House patronage, because the company is a big donor to Republican party coffers.

      It gave $708,770 in political contributions between 1999 and 2002, with 95% of that going to Republicans. Administration officials counter that few companies have the resources and expertise to carry out the work needed.

      Mr Cheney, a former defence secretary under the first Bush administration, stepped down as chief executive officer of Halliburton when he became Mr Bush`s running mate in 2000.

      He has said that he played no role in contracts for his former company, of which he became head in 1995.

      KBR was first criticised in the summer by Congress for charging high rates to bring petrol into Iraq from Kuwait, but there have been accusations of overcharging before.

      Last year, the firm paid $2m in fines to settle charges of inflating prices for repairs and maintenance at Fort Ord, California.

      In 1997 and 2000, the General Accounting Office, the congressional watchdog, found that KBR had billed the army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans.

      Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.90 per sheet of plywood actually costing $14.06, and billing the army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 14:43:45
      Beitrag Nr. 10.334 ()
      You wouldn`t treat an animal like this
      This week, three men on death row in Texas had their executions stopped at the last minute. The reason: vets claim that one of the drugs used in lethal injections is not even fit for killing animals. Alex Hannaford reports

      Alex Hannaford
      Friday December 12, 2003
      The Guardian

      Billy Vickers had already been driven 40 miles north from the Polunsky correctional unit in the pretty Texas town of Livingston to the Walls Unit in Huntsville. Just before 4pm the 58-year-old career criminal was given his last meal - pork chops and eggs, pan-fried potatoes, a bowl of gravy, toast, vanilla ice cream, root beer and coffee.

      His lawyer Keith Hampton arrived with news that an appeal to stop his execution and review his case had been rejected by the US supreme court. It looked like there would be no last minute reprieve but the veteran death row lawyer wasn`t giving up hope. In a separate action, a lawsuit had been filed on behalf of Vickers and two other Texas death row inmates due to face execution this week, seeking a permanent injunction against lethal injection. The suit claimed one of the chemicals used to carry out executions caused pain and suffering and so was unconstitutional as it constituted a "cruel and unusual punishment".

      While Vickers took a shower and dressed in a clean set of white prison overalls, three media representatives and a handful of other witnesses gathered in a lounge in the northeast corner of the prison close to the death chamber.

      Just after 6pm the door of his holding cell was unlocked and the man convicted of the fatal shooting of a north Texas grocery store owner during a botched robbery 11 years ago was taken to another cell next to the death chamber. There he was strapped to a gurney - effectively a bed on wheels with securing straps attached - and intravenous catheters were attached to his arms. Now all he could do was wait.

      Executions in Texas are usually over by half past six, but by seven o`clock Vickers was still in the holding cell. The clock ticked away - eight ... nine ... 10.

      At midnight, Vickers was taken by minibus back to the Polunsky unit, commonly known as death row. (A death warrant is only valid from 6pm until midnight for the day it is issued.) He became the first death row inmate to have a death warrant expire since lethal injection was first used in Texas in 1982. If an execution is halted it is usually because of intervention by the governor or courts.

      But the bizarre chain of events on Tuesday didn`t stop there; Vickers would be the first of three convicted killers to have their executions stopped in Texas this week.

      On Wednesday 42-year-old Kevin Lee Zimmerman, on death row for fatally stabbing a Louisiana oilfield worker 31 times in 1987, was told of his stay of execution less than half an hour before he was due to die.

      Bobby Hines, 31, convicted of killing a woman with an ice-pick in her Dallas apartment just over 10 years ago, also received a stay. Although his execution was stopped because his lawyer is claiming mental retardation, there is little doubt he would have received a stay regardless due to the lawsuit claiming the drug in lethal injections causes suffering.

      In an interview with Hines three weeks ago he pulled out a cutting from the Austin American Statesman newspaper. "There are some veterinarians here that have discovered that the drug they use to execute us on death row causes pain in animals," he said, staring at the page. "It`s a muscle relaxant which stops you from screaming out in pain. You can`t acknowledge pain if you`re paralysed. I don`t want to die. I am afraid of dying. I hear people in here all the time saying they`re not afraid to die but I think it`s an ego thing. Twelve years and I ain`t got used to it yet. I think only God has a right to judge. I don`t believe vengeance belongs to man."

      This week`s events in Texas could have huge implications for the death penalty in the United States. Lethal injection is now used throughout the US unless, in certain states, an inmate elects alternative means (electric chair, firing squad, hanging, lethal gas). While it probably won`t stop the use of lethal injection altogether, it will certainly delay its use while the supreme court decides what to do.

      A lethal injection consists of sodium thiopental, a barbiturate which sedates the prisoner; pancuronium bromide, a muscle relaxant which also collapses the diaphragm and lungs; and potassium chloride, which stops the heart. The offender is usually pronounced dead around seven minutes after the lethal injection is administered.

      The lawsuit in question centres around the use of pancuronium bromide. The American Veterinary Medical Association wants it banned in the killing of animals because it can mask suffering. Ironically, the lawsuit says it is illegal to use the drug to put a pet to sleep in Texas and at least 18 other states.

      Jim Marcus, executive director of the Texas Defenders Service, a legal group that represents death row inmates which filed the suit, says the challenge to the lethal injection in its present form is something that is going on around the country. "There is evidence that pancuronium bromide, the neuro-muscular blocking agent, renders a person paralysed but they`re completely sentient and dying a slow death of asphyxiation. Part of the problem is that the initial drug is a short-acting barbiturate. It`s not meant to keep somebody in deep anaesthesia. It`s not meant to put somebody out and that`s why there`s a significant risk. Once the inmate starts to experience respiratory problems from the other drugs that are used, they`re going to wake up. But they won`t be able to move, so from the outside it`s going to look like they are peaceful and serene.

      "There are more humane formulations that can be used. It doesn`t need to be this way. We used to hang, electrocute and gas people but we thought we`d found a more humane alternative. We`ve now reached a point where we`ve found that the injection is not something we should be using in its present form." Marcus also points out that in hospital, to anaesthetise somebody the amount of the drug used is determined by the patient`s weight, age, etc. On death row this doesn`t happen.

      He is cautious about being too optimistic about the events this week. The fifth circuit federal court in Texas has refused to hear civil rights suits such as this in the past, and this week`s supreme court decision has called this into question. The supreme court is essentially stalling for time to consider the options. The best Marcus can hope for is a ruling that the lower courts will be forced to hear his case. "This could reopen the courthouse door for us," Marcus says. "All we`re seeking is access to the courthouse."

      The ruling probably won`t be made until next summer, and so all executions in the US may be delayed until then. "It`s too soon to tell," Marcus says. "We won`t really know until we get further elucidation from the supreme court. If we get the chance to put forward our evidence then the jury will decide."

      Texas has executed 313 people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1974 - more than any US state. There are 452 inmates on death row.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 14:45:07
      Beitrag Nr. 10.335 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 14:55:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.336 ()
      Fair and Balanced™ Cartoons

      Cartoon Archive
      162 New Cartoons Today, da gestern von der Cartoonverwaltung blau gemacht wurde, heute 162 frische Cartoons:
      http://www.flu-ent.com/fairandbalanced.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.flu-ent.com/fairandbalanced.htm



      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 15:00:16
      Beitrag Nr. 10.337 ()
      Fly The Friendly Ad Sluts
      Because there really is absolutely nowhere that marketing schmucks will not stick a logo
      By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
      Friday, December 12, 2003
      ©2003 SF Gate

      URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/12/12/notes121203.DTL



      Just when you think it can`t possibly get any more mutated and underhanded and insulting and oh my god when will it stop.

      Just when you think it`s all been done and they can`t possibly dream up one more inane gimmick or obnoxious trick or devious smirking ploy to slap yet another corporate logo or SUV advertisement in front of your singed eyeballs, along comes . . . tray-table advertising.

      Yes. Tray tables. On airplanes. Right there.

      So now, after you suffer an hour of interminable security checks and the removal of your shoes and your belt and your pants and your nipple ring only to wait in line C at the airline counter for 117 minutes just to get stuck in the middle seat on that four-hour flight to Chicago . . .

      And you sit down and squeeze in your arms to your sides and make yourself very small and start breathing that toxic recycled bone-dry pressurized air and realize that every single flight exposes your id to this warped artificial canned surreality that simply cannot be good for your karmic complexion . . .

      And after the flight attendant ambles by with drinks and you flip down the tray table to receive your requisite 2.7 ounces of refreshing canned heavily sugared beverage in a plastic nonrecycled cup, you will see, right there on the tray, a large unavoidable advertisement for, say, Bank of America. Or Amex. Or Mercedes. Staring right back at you. For the entire flight. Joy.

      Tray-table advertising is the latest thing. TTA is coming to a flight near you. Why? Because Madison Avenue apparently has yet to exploit and abuse every possible inch of space in the public sphere.

      Because it`s not enough that they put little ads on ATM machines and on the little separator bars at the grocery-store checkout and on the insides of the restroom-stall doors and on paper coffee-cup holders and in the previews at the movie theater and in that goddamn pop-up window in your browser right now, stopping just short of breaking into your home at night and drugging you up and tattooing a Coke logo onto the underside of your eyelids.

      Because they are shameless and whorelike and borderline insane and on a long flight you are a miserable and deliciously captive audience.

      This is what the marketing people love the most about TTA. You cannot escape. You cannot get off the plane. Your only option to avoid tainting your soul is to flip your tray table back up (or down, depending on where they stick the ad) and try to ignore it entirely.

      Which is no solution at all, given how four inches away is another seat with another person whose tray table has the exact same ad, and you can only sigh in realization that you are, in fact, utterly surrounded with the dumb porn of relentless marketing, again.

      And all you can really do is pop the Valium and put on the headphones and close your eyes drift off into the nice reverie featuring open fields and beautiful oceans and happy woodland creatures as yet unstamped with a ConAgra hormone-injected toxic brand of inedibility.

      Oh hell. It`s not really a big deal. It`s just another dumb ad in a vast teeming unrelenting sea of dumb ads. Right? Of course it is.

      But is there no threshold? This is the question. Is there no point when we all collectively recoil at the savage parade of schlock and awe, and we all raise our hands to the sky and scream our collective agony just before slumping down on the couch for 19 minutes of beer commercials interspersed with 11 minutes of "Frasier?"

      You`d think we`d have reached saturation. You`d think that there simply cannot be a single person existing in modern American popular culture today who has not been so inundated, so completely drenched and hammered and pulverized since birth by the never-ending jackhammer of brands and logos and slogans, that therefore there is simply no way they would be open to any "new" attempt to sucker punch their last unsuspecting synapse.

      You are, apparently, wrong. There are more ways. There are always more ways.

      It is all in the name of helping the consumer, they claim, and the airline says the ads can help keep ticket prices lower and, hey, that can only be a good thing and therefore no one will complain because, as the cancer of Wal-Mart has proven, America values nothing, absolutely nothing, more than a bargain.

      We will sacrifice our integrity for it. We will sacrifice our rational thought, our sense of decency, our sense of fair play. We will gladly hand over, in the case of cheap-ass garbage food, our own health, and our children`s health, and the decent functionality of our hearts and sex organs and arteries.

      We will sacrifice American jobs. We will gladly let the plant down the road shut down and fire 5,000 employees because they had to ship all manufacturing to overseas sweatshops in order to be able to sell their wares to Wal-Mart.

      We will sacrifice our planet. Gladly, every day, every corner, every possible resource. Noise pollution and air pollution and light pollution and corporate pollution. We do not care. So long as it results in lower prices on the 30,000 brands of corn flakes or a free barrel of oil for the Expedition, we`re there.

      Tray-table ads are a tiny speck, the latest infinitesimal blow to the integrity of the human animal. They are, of course, no big deal and in a few years when all jetliners look like the inside of city buses, plastered all over with ads for Heineken and Xanax, we will think nothing of it and think this is how it has always been and always will be and oh well might as well just shut up and get used to it.

      Because if we have learned anything, it is not so much that we are a free-wheelin` capitalist society and therefore you just gotta deal with the ugly and invasive consequences, the snarling sloganeering and incessant little cries of consume, consume, consume.

      Rather, we have learned that the demons of that capitalist pantheon will, in fact, stop at absolutely nothing to market you to death so they may finally stick you in a nice $2,000 coffin -- which you can, of course, buy right now at Costco for only $1,499, while supplies last.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.

      Subscribe to Mark`s deeply skewed, mostly legal Morning Fix newsletter.
      Mark Morford`s Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate, unless it appears on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which it never does. He also writes the Morning Fix, a deeply skewed thrice-weekly e-mail column and newsletter. Subscribe at sfgate.com/newsletters.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 15:05:02
      Beitrag Nr. 10.338 ()
      POLL ANALYSES
      December 12, 2003


      Support for U.S. Troops in Iraq Rebounds
      Back to level of last summer


      by David W. Moore and Joseph Carroll
      GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

      PRINCETON, NJ -- A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey finds an increase in support for the war in Iraq. Since the end of September, the number of Americans saying the war was worth it has increased. In the past month, support for keeping American troops in Iraq has also increased. A clear majority of Americans continue to support the U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq, but less than a majority approve of how well the United States is doing there now. Still, Americans are more optimistic than pessimistic about the long-term situation in Iraq.

      Majority of Americans Say Situation in Iraq "Worth" Going to War Over

      The poll, conducted Dec. 5-7, finds that 59% of Americans say the situation with Iraq was worth going to war over, while 39% say it was not worth it. Since the end of September, when 50% said the war was worth it and 48% said it was not, there has been a steady increase toward a more positive assessment.

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031212.asp
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 15:09:37
      Beitrag Nr. 10.339 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-intel12de…
      THE NATION



      CIA Sends More Agents to Iraq to Help Crack the Insurgency
      By Greg Miller
      Times Staff Writer

      December 12, 2003

      WASHINGTON — Under growing pressure to produce better information on the insurgency in Iraq, the CIA has embarked on its largest mobilization of manpower to the region since the war began, said U.S. intelligence sources familiar with the operation.

      In recent weeks, the agency has begun a buildup that one source said could add as many as 100 people to an agency presence that is already several hundred strong in the war-torn country. Among those being sent, sources said, are case officers, counter-terrorism analysts and a small contingent of senior officials from the agency`s clandestine service.

      The moves come at a time when many in the intelligence community acknowledge that they are frustrated with their inability to penetrate an insurgency that continues to carry out deadly attacks on American soldiers and Iraqi civilians almost every day.

      The deployment also gives the CIA ammunition to counter criticism that it is not doing enough. One official briefed on the plans said the agency had described the mobilization as part of a broader push to "get on top of the problem." The deployment coincides with an ongoing effort by the CIA to begin assembling a new Iraqi intelligence service, partly by tapping remnants of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein`s vast but notoriously corrupt spying and security apparatus.

      Aspects of the plans were described by current and former CIA officials as well as sources in the military and on Capitol Hill.

      Intelligence officials said the primary objective of the CIA reinforcements was to help teams already in Iraq identify the leadership of the resistance and locate it for the military. The Pentagon has created a new Special Operations group dubbed Task Force 121 that has been charged with hunting "high-value" targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA already has elements working alongside Task Force 121 and other military units, and the fresh deployments will bolster that effort.

      With the majority of the most-wanted former regime figures depicted in the Pentagon`s playing cards having been killed or captured, military officials say a more serious current threat comes from the lower tiers of Hussein`s Baath Party, as well as his military and intelligence services and paramilitary Fedayeen fighters. In addition, hundreds or perhaps thousands of foreign fighters have trickled into the country, some thought to have ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

      For months there have been complaints from commanders in Iraq as well as military officials in Washington that U.S. forces have been hamstrung not by a shortage of troops but by a lack of intelligence. Just last week in Washington, Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a key to turning the tide in Iraq is to get "much, much better at gathering and sharing intelligence."

      Much of that criticism is aimed at the military`s own intelligence assets, including counterintelligence units responsible for cultivating sources among the civilian population. But the CIA also has come under fire for the lack of "human intelligence," information gathered by spies on the ground that is considered key to cracking the insurgency.

      A U.S. official disputed suggestions that the new deployments were in response to criticism, or represented a belated recognition of the seriousness of the problem in Iraq.

      "The notion that this just snuck up on us is absurd," the official said. "We`ve had senior, highly qualified people over there from before the war started. We send additional people when there are additional needs to address them. There`s more and more work to be done, additional leads to be followed."

      He declined to provide any specifics on the numbers or assignments of agency employees involved in the latest wave of deployments. Other sources said they included a deputy division chief and one or more group chiefs — high-ranking clandestine service officers responsible for overseeing operations in large swaths of the globe. Such officers would likely be taking leadership roles on the ground in Baghdad, directing operations and evaluating the reliability of collected intelligence.

      Though many in the community consider the new assignments a positive development, they are skeptical that boosting the number of people in the country will produce meaningful results.

      "They`re just going to fill up the green zone with spooks," said one former CIA officer, referring to the fenced-off, fortress-like portion of Baghdad that serves as headquarters for the Coalition Provisional Authority as well as the military leadership.

      Certain environments are so dangerous for Westerners that CIA case officers will not be able to venture out into the community to recruit sources tied to the resistance, he said.

      "You`re not going to get in your SUV and go out and meet some guy in Sadr City at midnight," said the former case officer, who has experience in Iraq. "You have to go out in force" — meaning armed and accompanied by an escort — "and you can`t make a clandestine meeting like that."

      As a result, he said, the agency might continue to be largely dependent on information from "walk-ins," or volunteer sources. "You listen to people coming in, run them through a polygraph, stick $1,000 in their pockets and send them out with instructions not to come back until they have some hard information," he said.

      The number of analysts in the country is "climbing toward 50 right now" and will exceed that after the latest round of assignments, an agency source said. Though the analysts being deployed include experts on the region and counter-terrorism, others are being pulled away from unrelated assignments and topics, the source said. Some have volunteered for the work, but in other cases there have been "directed assignments" that employees can decline, but do so at risk of adverse consequences to their careers.

      The source likened the atmosphere to that at the agency in the 1970s, when the CIA was desperate for staffers to send to Southeast Asia. The rule was, "Don`t say the word `Vietnam` or you`ll find yourself on a plane over there."

      The White House confirmed that it has signed off on a plan to create a new Iraqi intelligence service, a development first reported in the Washington Post on Thursday. The CIA has been recruiting or utilizing former Iraqi intelligence operatives since the summer, sources said, but is now trying to work out the new service`s structure.

      The service appears likely to be run, at least initially, by Interior Minister Nouri Badran. He and Iyad Allawi, the head of the Iraqi National Accord, have been at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., this week discussing details of the new service.

      But the effort to build a new Iraqi intelligence apparatus from the ashes of the old is fraught with difficulties, starting with the challenge of identifying former operatives who can be rehabilitated and trusted.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 15:17:14
      Beitrag Nr. 10.340 ()
      Frontal21
      Der Wind dreht sich

      George Bush und seine neuen Gegner

      Die Hand auf dem Herzen wenn die Hymne erklingt - monatelang gab diese Geste den Ton an. Die USA waren im Anti-Terrorkampf. Kritik an den Oberkommandierenden galt als unpatriotisch. Doch das nationale Tschingderassabum wird allmählich leiser.
      von Thomas Walde, 14.10.2003

      weiter:
      http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/11/0,1872,2072875,00.html


      George Bush und seine neuen Gegner (Teil 2):

      Überall in den USA fliegen Howard Dean die Herzen der demokratischen Basis zu, weil er am härtesten und am längsten auf den Präsidenten eindrischt. Das heißt zwar noch nicht, dass er der Kandidat seiner Partei wird. Doch schon jetzt gilt Deans Kampagne als unerwarteter Erfolg und als Indiz, dass sich die Stimmung im Land deutlich verändert.

      weiter:
      http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/13/0,1872,2072877,00.html
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 15:22:01
      Beitrag Nr. 10.341 ()
      The Women of al Qaeda


      ====================
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 17:53:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.342 ()
      They hate us liberals for our freedom

      By H. N. Arendt
      Online Journal Contributing Writer

      December 11, 2003—Most liberals found G.W. Bush`s soundbite, "They hate us for our freedom," to be laughably counter-factual. They cynically pointed out that Bush was preventing future attacks by canceling our freedoms.

      As informed citizens, instead of docile corporate news consumers, liberals knew that America had been shooting up the Middle East for decades—at first by proxy, more recently with our own military.

      But, to merely add this sentence to the ever-growing list of Bush`s manipulative generalizations and lies misses something important. By accident, Bush`s speechwriter may have said something for liberals to think about. Consider the meaning if "us" are liberals and "they" are fundamentalist Christians. Then it reads:

      "American fundamentalist Christians hate American liberals for their freedom."

      Now this makes sense! They hate our urbanity, our education, our rationality, our religious tolerance, our respect for women, gays, and people of color as equals. A moment`s consideration should make this obvious. If you said to an average New Yorker, "American hicks hate the Big Apple`s freedoms," you would get little disagreement. I`m saying the same thing.

      If you think about it this way, Bush`s soundbite is a two-fer: the fundies get to project their open hatred of liberal America onto fundamentalist Arabs, and then they get to put their righteously angry words into the mouths of liberals, many of whom were sad, not angry, about 911. We know now that the Bush administration`s solicitude for New York City was phony because New York`s public health and rebuilding were blown off as soon as the media spotlight turned away. (Lying about post-9/11 air quality; welching on the promised funds to rebuild.)

      But the administration`s projected anger at Arabs was genuine. They used this anger to solidify their position with Americans beyond their hardcore fundamentalist Christian supporters. Now it is true that the fundamentalists do hate Arabs. If you wonder where this came from, consider their epithet "sand nigger". But, the leaders of the fundamentalist Christian movement in America have always defined the main "enemy" to be godless, decadent liberalism.

      So, the fundies already had an external enemy to motivate them. But, non-fundamentalists needed to have their own external enemy if the country was to be united in hatred. So Arab fundamentalists were a perfect choice. They allow non-fundamentalist Americans to vent against an external fundamentalism, while keeping the spotlight away from the religious fruitcakes in the Bush administration who have a hard on for Armageddon soon in the Middle East.

      Unwittingly, non-fundamentalist Americans have bought into one of the oldest traditions of the Middle East: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Many Americans have looked upon the bellicosity and outright murderousness of fundamentalist Christian rage against Arabs as a good, patriotic thing. Lack of sufficient hatred has been called "unpatriotic." This mainstreaming of hatred is a huge victory for fundamentalism.

      Americans who have bought this line ought to be thinking about what happens when, not if, that mayhem gets unleashed at home. Liberals know better. They have been experiencing right-wing violence for over a decade: abortion clinic bombers, doctor assassins, Olympic bombers, WACO cultists, crazed neo-Nazi random shooters. And with the installation of Inquisitor General Ashcroft, things have gotten worse. Instead of chasing terrorists, he is attacking medical marijuana, assisted suicide, and other matters of a very personal nature.

      So, I suggest that liberals take ownership of this soundbite, and make a list of the freedom`s which the Bush administration hated enough to destroy. The list is already long. Check any website keeping track of such things.

      The freedoms which Christian fundamentalists hate and destroy are the basis of our form of government. Their hatred for the Enlightenment and, by extension, for the Constitution as a quintessentially enlightened document, is out in the open. For example, there is a certain Howard Ahmanson who owns a stake in ES&S, one of the major voting machine companies. He is also an avowed Christian Reconstructionist who wants to replace the Constitution with Biblical Law. Where I come from, that is treason. But no one in the media seems to care. Why doesn`t someone say Ahmanson hates us for our freedoms?

      I think that exposing these codewords is vital to preventing Americans from becoming further bamboozled by the torrent of anti-democracy propaganda and actions emanating from the religious right and from its agents inside the Bush administration. George Bush is breaking the law with his "faith-based" breaching of the wall of Church and State; although I expect Antonin Scalia to rise to Dred Scott levels of hypocrisy when such a case comes before him. He will do so because he is another avowed theocrat, another traitor to his oath of office and a constitutional felon in the 2000 Selection.

      Liberals need to say it out loud. The religious right has crossed the line. They are traitors to the U.S. Constitution; they are hate-mongers and hypocrites. They are merciless, and they have almost the entire government in their hands. And most of all: "They hate us liberals for our freedoms."
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 17:56:24
      Beitrag Nr. 10.343 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 18:02:29
      Beitrag Nr. 10.344 ()

      A U.S. soldier rides atop a military vehicle as it passes a huge bust of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein outside the al-Salam palace December 12, 2003 in Baghdad. Iraqi insurgents bombarded the heavily fortified headquarters for U.S. military and civilian operations in central Baghdad in the early hours of Friday, the first attack on the sprawling compound in nearly a month.


      Mortars Pound U.S. Headquarters in Baghdad
      Fri December 12, 2003 10:39 AM ET


      By Luke Baker
      BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi insurgents bombarded the fortified headquarters of the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad early Friday, the first attack on the compound since U.S. forces launched a mass anti-guerrilla offensive a month ago.

      In Washington, the Bush administration was braced for a possible legal battle over its decision to bar France, Germany, Russia and other countries that opposed the Iraq war from participating in its reconstruction.

      Shortly after midnight in Baghdad, several loud booms shook the city. Sirens wailed and loudspeakers warned residents inside the headquarters complex to take evasive action.

      The U.S. military could not immediately confirm what sort of munitions were fired, but sources said mortars were probably used to hammer the two square mile area, known as the Green Zone, on the banks of the Tigris river.

      "There were four points of impact within the Green Zone," a U.S. military spokeswoman said Friday. "Two coalition force members were slightly wounded from flying debris, but the injuries are not life-threatening."

      One building in the area, which comprises dozens of palaces once part of Saddam Hussein`s presidential compound, was slightly damaged. Smoke billowed from two locations.

      It was the first bombardment on the headquarters, which is protected by concrete walls, since mid-November when guerrillas fired on the area several nights running. It was also the first assault on the complex since U.S. forces launched a major counteroffensive against insurgents last month.

      The attack came after a suicide car bomb blast on a U.S. military base west of Baghdad which killed one U.S. soldier and wounded 14, three of them seriously. It was the third suicide attack on U.S. forces in Iraq this week.

      Since the start of the war to oust Saddam, 311 U.S. soldiers have been killed in action, 196 of them in guerrilla attacks since major combat was declared over on May 1.

      Members of the U.S.-led coalition have also been targeted. In the latest such attack Friday, two Polish soldiers were wounded when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle near Hilla, 60 miles south of Baghdad.

      CONTRACT DISPUTE

      The Bush administration is facing a deepening dispute over contracts it plans to award in the process of rebuilding Iraq. The Pentagon has said contracts to be financed by $18.6 billion of U.S. money will be limited to countries that backed the war, freezing out the likes of France, Germany, Russia and China.

      European Commission officials are studying whether the restrictions violate World Trade Organization rules. In Brussels, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana called the Pentagon move "not the wisest decision."

      In an apparent effort to calm tempers, Bush is dispatching special envoy James Baker to Europe for talks on the contracts as well as how creditors are going to go about reducing Iraq`s estimated $120 billion of external debt obligations.

      Inside Iraq, U.S. efforts to create a new, streamlined Iraqi army suffered a major setback Thursday when more than a third of the recruits resigned, complaining about pay and conditions.

      Some 300 soldiers of the 700 drafted into the First Battalion of the Iraqi army walked away from barracks, with many reportedly looking for jobs with the better paying police.

      The United States is recruiting and training an army it envisions as a force of about 40,000, along with larger numbers of police and border guards.

      In southern Iraq, Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino visited Italian troops in Nassiriya, a month after 19 Italians and nine Iraqis were killed in a suicide bomb attack there. (With additional reporting by Jamie Crawford in Rome and Adam Entous in Washington)
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 18:11:03
      Beitrag Nr. 10.345 ()
      December 10, 2003
      http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo12102003.html
      The War According to Newt Gingrich
      Growing the Dictatorship in Iraq
      By KURT NIMMO

      Yes, things are going haywire in Iraq -- but we can fix the problem, or so says one of the top slot neocons, Newt Gingrich.

      See, according to Newt, the problem is Bush didn`t install an Iraqi dictator immediately after the invasion. Instead he sent over Paul Bremer and his crew who took up residence in one of Saddam`s palaces.

      It looks bad, having all these white boys around calling the shots. Besides, they are really a bunch of screw-ups.

      So, as Newt explains, Bush needs to get an Iraqi in there soon as possible. Put an Arab face on the neocon Master Plan for Zionist domination of the Middle East. Maybe that way it will be more palatable to the Iraqis. Maybe that way not so many Americans will die.

      Well, chances are it won`t be the least bit palatable to the Iraqis, but then the neocons are hardly concerned about what the Iraqis think. Hell, on most days, the Iraqis don`t even have electricity.

      "The idea that we are going to have a corruption-free, pristine, League of Women Voters government in Iraq on Tuesday is beyond naiveté," Newt told John Barry and Evan Thomas of Newsweek.

      Bush has to get a quisling in there, a groomed puppet maybe like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan.

      Never mind that Karzai can`t take a stroll around the block in Kabul without a few dozen Special Forces types protecting him from the people he supposedly represents.

      Anyway, what Newt`s saying is that Bush needs to get a dictator in there pronto, another Saddam, a Saddam minus the Ba`ath Party and all that exhibitionistic Arab nationalism stuff, a Saddam who answers to Bush and the Zionist neocons and doesn`t fund Palestinian suicide bombers.

      A dictator who will immediately recognize Israel.

      Newt put in a lot of time prior to the invasion, browbeating folks over at the CIA, and hell if he`s going to let it all go down the tubes now.

      He was "seen as a personal emissary of the Pentagon and, in particular, of the OSP," the Guardian wrote at the time.

      For those of you who don`t know, OSP is short for the Office of Special Plans, a sort of neocon version of the CIA that "cherry-picked" intelligence favorable to the idea that invading Iraq and killing a few thousand people, wrecking Iraq`s already decimated infrastructure, and grabbing its oil, all in the best interest of America -- or, rather, in the best interest of Israel and multinational corporations, most notably oil and death merchant, i.e., "defense industry" corporations, connected to Bush and Cheney.

      Last time we heard from Citizen Newt, the washed-up and disgraced former speaker of the House, he was lambasting the State Department.

      There were people in Colin Powell`s State Department "appeasing dictators and propping up corrupt regimes," complained Citizen Newt.

      In his speech, delivered before the neocon choir over at the American Enterprise Institute -- known fondly as the "Temple of Doom" by Washington insiders -- Newt sounded oddly like the infamous senator from Wisconsin, Joe McCarthy, when he said back in 1950 that the State Department was "thoroughly infested with communists."

      These days, of course, communists are pretty much old hat--the new enemy burrowing deep inside our government, according to the neocons, are treacherous Middle East specialists who do not demonstrate the requisite degree of allegiance to Israel and the whacked out Zionists.

      Back in April, when Newt made his Joe M. speech, Powell was off to Syria to talk. Neocons, of course, don`t talk--they drop bunker buster bombs.

      "The last seven months have involved six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military success," said Citizen Newt, referencing the previous month`s mass murder in Iraq. "The first days after military victory indicate the pattern of diplomatic failure is beginning once again and threatens to undo the effects of military victory."

      In other words, diplomacy only spoils all the good work accomplished by mass murder and wanton destruction predicated on a swarm of lies and deception, most of it spawned from the OSP where Gingrich worked.

      As well, diplomacy doesn`t earn a bundle for the death merchants, the guys who have a stranglehold on the government, the same government more than a few clueless Americans believe has their best interests at heart.

      Frankly, Newt is a Richard Perle automaton.

      For some reason it`s hard to imagine Gingrich talking without a nod from his ideological boss, the Prince of Darkness and accused Israeli spy Richard Perle.

      Both of these right-wing zealots spend their time plotting the demise of Arab children and grandmothers over at the Defense Policy Board (DPB), along with other dangerous rogues such as the former spooks James Woolsey and James Schlesinger, war criminal at large Henry Kissinger, intellectual luminary Dan Quayle, and a few retired generals who take JINSA-sponsored walking tours over in Israel.

      Not long ago Perle was the chairman of Rumsfeld`s DPB, but his apparently insatiable desire to profit from war and misery got in the way and he had to step down, although he is still firmly entrenched in the DPB.

      As previously stated, the DPB is stacked with war profiteers beholden to death merchant corporations such as Boeing, TRW, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Booz Allen Hamilton, all of whom have a keen interest in bombing "failed states" such as Iraq for fun and profit.

      As the Center for Public Integrity notes, of the DPB`s thirty members "at least nine have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002." Additionally, four DPB members "are registered lobbyists, one of whom represents two of the three largest defense contractors."

      As well, a large number of Rummy`s DPB members are connected to far right- wing extremist "think tanks":

      Former national security adviser Richard Allen, in addition to being a lobbyist for Alliance Aircraft, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution (these guys were Dubya`s "brain trust" -- since it seems Bush doesn`t have much of one--during the 2000 election).

      Retired Admiral David Jeremiah, who works for no less than five corporations doing business with the misnamed Defense Department, is a board member of JINSA, or the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs (a rabidly Zionist organization that hosts the General and Flag Officer`s program; this rewires American military officers into pro-Israel Stepford humans).

      Kiron Sinner, assistant professor of history, political science and public policy at Carnegie Mellon, and helpmate to Condoleezza Rice, is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

      Ruth Wedgwood, professor of law at Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies, is also a CFRite.

      Former CIA director James Woolsey labors in the service of JINSA.

      Richard Perle, the quintessential dual-allegiance Zionist and accused Israeli spy (in the Jonathan Pollard espionage case), is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a board member of the hawkish pro-Israel Advisors of Foundation for Defense of Democracy (Perle shares this position with the right-wing Zionists Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and Gary Bauer), and is the former director of the Jerusalem Post.

      Finally, Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, and "analyst" for the Bush Ministry of Disinformation, aka Fox News.

      It`s no secret that these individuals and organizations, along with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), are primarily responsible for planning and conspiring together to illegally and immorally invade Iraq (current number of innocent civilians murdered: over 10,000).

      No doubt, in the aftermath of the invasion and the muddle the Bushites have made of it, the above-mentioned neocons and others are antsy for stability.

      There is, after all, a schedule here -- the US has to build military bases in Iraq in preparation for new invasions, decades of occupation, and fulfilling its obligation to be the policeman for a Likudite Greater Israel and enforcer for multinational neoliberalism, otherwise known as global theft.

      So, according to the Perle neocons, there needs to be an Iraqi "leader" put in place, and sooner the better, hopefully before the election next year.

      Over at the Pentagon where Rummy`s DPB holds court, the idea has long been to put the CIA stooge, Iraqi National Congress darling, and convicted bank swindler Ahmed Chalabi in charge. Richard Perle is hot on Chalabi, mostly because he`s an Arab who will do what the Likudites want.

      "Chalabi and his people have confirmed that they want a real peace process, and that they would recognize the state of Israel," the Prince of Darkness told the Washington Post in April. Naturally, this is the most important thing for the Zionist neocons at the Pentagon, to hell with bringing stability and security to the Iraqi people. Plus, it would serve as a big slap in the face to millions of Arabs who want justice for the Palestinians.

      Perle and the DPB are rolling out Gingrich, hoping to get something moving in regard to imposing Chalabi or some other Iraqi exile on the Iraqi people, and soon, before the occupation slips further out of reach and the insurgency is taken up by the Shi`ites.

      Once the uprising against US occupation moves beyond the minority Sunni community, the neocon vision of an emasculated Iraq, no longer able to challenge Israel or pay stipends to Palestinian suicide bombers, will be shattered and lost.

      Israel sorely needs to defuse the "Palestinian problem," most likely by turning the West Bank and Gaza into huge open-air concentration camps, or by way of "transfer," i.e., ethnic cleansing -- but it can`t do any of this effectively until the Arab Middle East is rendered politically and militarily inert.

      That`s what the "war on terr`ism" is all about.

      Moreover, before Bush gets too disillusioned, what with an election right around the corner and his apparent and growing willingness to find a quick fix to the Iraqi quagmire, the neocons hope to short circuit any talk of actual democracy in Iraq.

      Obviously, allowing Iraqis to vote for whomever they want would result in a Muslim theocracy of one sort or another, possibly aligned with Iran, a complete nightmare scenario for the Zionist neocons. Instead, they hope get a malleable dictator in there, and right quick, preferably before the election next year.

      "The real key here is not how many enemy do I kill. The real key is how many allies do I grow," Gingrich told Newsweek. "And that is a very important metric that [the US military] just don`t get."

      It`s not that Gingrich and the Zionist neocons want to stop the killing and give peace a chance.

      No, the Perle neocons simply want to take the killing off the front page, stop the incremental killing of US soldiers (it`s bad PR), and install a strong dictator and an effective security apparatus, maybe something along the lines of the Shah`s SAVAK in Iran, something with teeth able to effectively terrorize the resistance, something organized and trained under the guidance of the United States and Israeli intelligence officers, as was SAVAK in 1957. SAVAK, after all, was the prefect instrument for one-party rule, for torture and execution of political prisoners, and for mercilessly crushing dissent.

      This, however, may not be necessary for, as the Telegraph reported in May, the US was busy at work recruiting former members of Saddam`s Mukhabarat, regardless of Bremer`s stated desire to pursue "de-Ba`athification" measures.

      In fact, these former thugs in Saddam`s employ may be exactly what Newt was referencing when he said the "idea that we are going to have a corruption-free, pristine, League of Women Voters government in Iraq on Tuesday is beyond naiveté."

      On December 5, the handpicked Iraqi Ruling Council indicated it plans to revive Mukhabarat.

      "We will use their own dogs to hunt them down," exclaimed Nabil al-Musawi, deputy president of the Iraqi National Congress and the party`s chief of security. "To think that I am supporting this idea surprises even me. But we have to be realistic... If I have to deal with the devil for short-term gain for the sake of my people, then I will."

      Nabil al-Musawi, of course, is being extremely disingenuous--once Mukhabarat, or a SAVAK-like equivalent, is unleashed on the Iraqi people, it will not be a "deal with the devil for short-term," but a permanent fixture of the US- Israel imposed state (or possible states, since there`s talk of breaking Iraq up along ethnic lines).

      The neocons have a lot riding on Iraq--they can`t afford to have Bush blow it now with his trifling concerns over an election next year, an election that really means absolutely nothing to the neocons beyond that the fact that if Bush is trounced they will be unceremoniously bounced as well.

      Besides, that`s what Diebold voting machines are for.

      Kurt Nimmo is a photographer and multimedia developer in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Visit his excellent no holds barred blog at www.kurtnimmo.com/blogger.html . Nimmo is a contributor to Cockburn and St. Clair`s, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. A collection of his essays for CounterPunch, Another Day in the Empire, will soon be published by Dandelion Books.

      He can be reached at: nimmo@zianet.com
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 18:27:06
      Beitrag Nr. 10.346 ()
      http://www.atimes.com

      Middle East

      The bad news that just won`t go away
      By David Isenberg

      Will things ever get better in Iraq? Most likely, but don`t hold your breath waiting because it is going to take a while. Bad news seems to be the de jour specialty when it comes to all things Iraq.

      Consider, for example, some of the newest reports and commentaries that have been released. A draft report by highly respected analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the asymmetric conflict being waged between United States forces and former regime loyalists and various Islamists finds that "neither side can achieve their original grand strategic objectives. This has forced each side to limit its objectives to the point where neither side may be able to `win` in grand strategic terms."

      In rather blunt language, he notes that for the US this means:

      The US cannot achieve the objective of removing an urgent and imminent threat because there is no evidence such a threat existed.
      Ditto for linkages between Iraq and the "war on terrorism". "Iraq at best played a peripheral role in terrorism, with limited and unimportant links to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups with limited operational meaning. If anything, the US may have triggered more Arab and Islamic anger aimed at the US."
      The US will be unable to shape Iraq into a modern democracy or free market economy. The US will have to leave long before the political, economic and energy issues in Iraq play out, and Iraq will then face years, if not a decade, of instability.
      Iraq will not become any near-term example to the region of what a state should be, or of the US ability to create a democracy.
      The US will not win the hearts, minds or friendship of the Iraqi people. The war will generate as much anger as gratitude.
      The situation in Iraq is far more likely to compound US problems with Islamic movements than reduce them, and will probably produce a significantly less secular regime over time.

      Put another way, the US is caught between Iraq and a hard place. Writing in the latest issue of the Washington Quarterly journal, Steve Metz, director of research at the US Army War College`s Strategic Studies Institute, concludes: "The United States faces an intractable dilemma in Iraq: in effect, it is damned if it does, damned if it doesn`t. By staying, the United States will face a protracted insurgency, but by withdrawing before the new Iraq is able to stand on its own, the ultimate strategic objective - a unified, stable Iraq that does not threaten its neighbors and does not support international terrorism - will not be met."

      Meanwhile, on December 2, in a little-noted briefing at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, Charles Duelfer, former deputy director of UNSCOM, the original UN weapons inspection agency in Iraq and a supporter of the war, said: "It will probably turn out, in my judgment, that there are no existing weapons in Iraq, and that mildly surprises me." No doubt it will also surprise the Central Intelligence Agency, which insisted in a November 28 statement that its National Intelligence Estimate issued in October 2002 was on solid ground when it "judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons".

      But there`s more. A just-released report, from the Fund for Peace, found that things in Iraq have gone from bad to worse in a significant way. The report, "Iraq as a Failed State" finds: "In a brilliant demonstration of the law of unintended consequences, the US-led invasion of Iraq went far beyond its original goal of regime change. It precipitated the final collapse of a state that had been deteriorating for years. Shattered states proliferate, not eliminate, threats, however, and that is exactly what happened in Iraq. The security meltdown, over the first six months of the occupation, is a continuation of that persistent breakdown."

      The report covered a six-month period up until September and noted that of 12 top indicators of state collapse, four have worsened since the war - demographic pressures, the provision of public services, factionalized elites and intervention by external political actors. And three others - the depth of group grievances, uneven development and refugees and internally displaced persons - remain at acutely high levels. For others - brain drain, sharp economic decline, a security apparatus operating as a "state within a state" and delegitimatization of the state - improved only marginally. Only one, human rights, improves substantially, and that is still reversible because newly found freedoms are not protected in law.

      This affirms the Iraq risk assessment released in July by the PRS Group`s International Country Risk Guide, which gave a rating of very high risk for Iraq as of July and also predicted a likelihood of very high for the worst-case scenario coming to pass in five years.

      Meanwhile, despite talk from various US politicians about the need to "internationalize the occupation", it is unlikely that the United Nations will be doing much any time soon. A report released on December 10 by Secretary General Kofi Annan said that more security and a clearer mandate were necessary before the UN could return to Iraq. "It is difficult to envisage the United Nations operating with a large number of international staff inside Iraq in the near future, unless there is an unexpected and significant improvement in the overall security situation," the report says.

      (Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 18:30:51
      Beitrag Nr. 10.347 ()


      Rival former exile groups clash over security in Iraq
      By Nicolas Pelham in Baghdad
      Published: December 11 2003 18:42 | Last Updated: December 11 2003 18:42
      http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/Sto…
      Tensions have emerged between two influential formerly exiled political parties in Baghdad over control of Iraq`s rapidly proliferating security organisations.

      The growing number of Iraqi-financed private military companies had already sparked concern that secular leaders may be developing militias to match the paramilitary forces under the command of religious and Kurdish political groups.

      Now Ayad Allawi`s Iraqi National Accord has accused the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmad Chalabi, of undermining central authority by backing the creation of a private military company to secure the oil sector.

      Mr Allawi is head of the security committee on the interim Governing Council and his deputy, Nouri Badran, runs the interior ministry which controls more than 50,000 police.

      The sparring between Mr Chalabi and Mr Allawi dates from the 1990s, when both men led separate attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein. While Mr Chalabi is close to the Pentagon and advocates redrawing the Middle East political map, Mr Allawi is regarded as closer to the CIA and fears further upsetting the status quo would inflame the region.

      The latest dispute between the two men, both members of the Iraqi Governing Council`s rotating presidency, erupted after close associates of Mr Chalabi teamed up with Erinys International, a Johannesburg-based security risk consultancy, to train and deploy a 6,500-strong Iraqi force at oil installations. The joint venture, Erinys Iraq, won an $80m (?66m, £46m), two-year contract to protect oil sites across Iraq from sabotage.

      "If such security companies are not under central government control there will be anarchy," said Mr Allawi. He said the interior ministry should regulate the oil security force.

      Erinys Iraq says its security responsibilities will revert to state control at the end of its two-year contract. "The INC played no part in securing the contract," says Faisal Daghistani, a founding partner and director of the company. He says the contract was won fairly in an open tender. Coalition officials, too, deny the INC influenced the decision. "It`s simply not true. Erinys` was the best bid," said one.

      Mr Daghistani, son of the INC`s humanitarian co-ordinator, however, acknowledges Erinys is recruiting US-trained Iraqi Free Forces, who entered Iraq with Mr Chalabi.

      Mr Chalabi has responded by accusing Mr Allawi of encouraging foreign interference in Iraq`s security. The Jordanian government has won a contract to train 32,000 Iraqi police - money Mr Chalabi says would be better spent in Iraq. While the contract was awarded by the ministry, on advice from the CPA, the interior ministry - under INA leadership - is seen as the beneficiary.

      "The Governing Council did not to agree to spend $1.2bn on eight-week long courses for Iraqi police in Jordan. It would be far more efficient to train them in Iraq," said Mr Chalabi. Ibrahim al-Jannabi, Mr Allawi`s deputy on the security committee, counters that the deal is worth $180m and is financed by the US, not Iraq.

      Orders to disband Iraqi militias have been only loosely enforced.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 18:38:51
      Beitrag Nr. 10.348 ()
      Exposed: The Carlyle Group
      Ist wieder interessant geworden durch die Berufung von James Baker.
      Shocking documentary uncovers the subversion of Americas democracy.

      I defy you to watch this 48 minute documentary and not be outraged about the depth of corruption and deceit within the highest ranks of our government and the first family.

      Note: The first one minute forty seven seconds of this program is in broadcast in Dutch, The remainder is in English.


      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/claryle.ram
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 21:31:16
      Beitrag Nr. 10.349 ()
      Afghanistan

      Freedom From Guilt Doesn`t Imply Freedom From Blame

      by Paul Woodward; December 11, 2003

      "We can do no wrong" is an idea that seems to be deeply embedded in the American psyche. This vanity of purity cleans many a conscience that would otherwise be heavily burdened with guilt.

      More than a jealous regard for American freedom having poisoned any foreigner`s mind, those who witness this professed American innocence used as a cloak to conceal barbarity are being driven into a righteous anger that no expression of regret can extinguish.

      As was widely reported (New York Times , BBC ) around the world this weekend, an American airstrike ripped apart an Afghan village and slaughtered nine children. Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, who traveled to the village after the attack was later reported as saying that the surviving villagers had been "understanding" and that "they`ve been through years of war. They`re not happy, but I think it meant a great deal to them that my commander, Gen. [Lloyd] Austin, came out and personally expressed his condolences."

      CNN reported this under the headline "Afghans understand deaths - U.S. " and referred to "the apparent deaths of nine children in an American airstrike". While the US military is never quick to accept its mistakes, and while it may express regrets but rarely assumes responsibility, CNN is not duty bound to march in lockstep with the Pentagon line. By inserting the qualification "apparent", CNN hesitated from simply reporting that the children were killed by the bombing. This, when two hours earlier the BBC had already reported that "US forces have admitted mistakenly killing nine children."

      CNN neglected to report that the declared target of the attack, Mullah Wazir, a former low-ranking member of the Taliban, was neither present in the village, nor was his house hit. The claim that Wazir had left ten days earlier came from the villagers and had been reported by the BBC . CNN might regard the Pentagon as a more reliable source of information, but in this case neither CNN, the Pentagon or anyone else, can claim that the airstrike was based on reliable and accurate intelligence. (That the military spokesman described their intelligence as "clear and actionable" appears to simply be an attempt to create the latitude for concluding that this was an honest mistake for which no one can be held culpable.)

      CNN showed a picture of Afghan men viewing the children`s graves, though the photo carried a caption saying "Afghan men walk past the children`s graves at a cemetery" (emphasis added). Since we had been told that the villagers were "understanding", was the photo meant to suggest that, philosophical about their loss, the war-weary Afghans were already moving on?

      CNN`s follow-up report 3 hours 40 minutes later, reiterated the Pentagon`s doubts by reporting that "nine children have been found dead near the site of an airstrike on a suspected terrorist`s position in Afghanistan." Does CNN share the Pentagon`s doubt about the cause of death?

      CNN has subsequently failed to report that the UN has called for an inquiry into the attack.

      As a footnote to today`s report on Operation Avalanche (described as "the largest ground operation yet in Afghanistan"), CNN now quotes Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty as saying "we accept blame" for the deaths of the children. The report continues:

      "We offer our condolences to the village, but I will tell you the surveillance video shows no children there. But we`re not trying to avoid blame in this."

      He said an investigation will clarify what happened to the children.

      "The biggest thing is we want to express our condolences no matter what happened," Hilferty said.

      Additionally, he said witness accounts from villagers indicated that the man who was killed was not the intended target, but DNA tests on the body have not been concluded.

      "It could be a different person but still be a very bad person, so we can`t come to any conclusion yet until the investigation," Hilferty said.

      That`s what I call a mixed message.

      We`re to blame - but we didn`t see the children...

      "...no matter what happened" - perhaps we weren`t to blame after all...

      We might have killed the wrong guy, but what`s it matter if he happened to be a bad guy...

      The bottom line: If an American bomb falls on your house, be assured, it was dropped with the best of intentions. Paul Woodward edits The War in Context http://warincontext.org This article also appears here: http://warincontext.org/editorials/guiltfree.htm
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 21:38:39
      Beitrag Nr. 10.350 ()
      http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/bal-ed.contracts12dec12,…
      Neo-ineptitude

      December 12, 2003

      THE UNITED STATES has a mess on its hands in Iraq, and the man who may have done more than anyone else to bring that about shot his own country in the foot yet again this week.
      That was Paul Wolfowitz - the man who conceptualized a visionary mission to recast Middle Eastern paradigms, in the service of a boss who mostly just wanted Saddam Hussein`s hide - issuing a Pentagon edict on Tuesday that must have been designed as a sharp stick in the eye for those countries that formed the coalition of the unhelpful during the recent accomplishment in Iraq. No rebuilding contracts for the French, Germans, Russians, et al, said he.

      The most accurate description of this fatwa comes from a seasoned British Conservative politician now serving as Europe`s foreign relations commissioner, Chris Patten: "gratuitous." It`s gratuitous because:


      It comes at the very moment when the Bush administration wants to persuade some of those same countries to forgive Iraq`s substantial debt. Thanks but no thanks, said the Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov - or words to that effect.

      It doesn`t actually mean much, as the White House weakly pointed out, because there are other ways that companies from the shunned nations can get in on the action. The edict is more about the message it sends than the dollars it spends, in other words - and it`s exactly the wrong message.

      It justifies the ban by citing U.S. security concerns - as if those wily Bavarians were just waiting for a chance to put down their beer steins and take a whack at Americans in the name of Allah. The security business was apparently an attempt to evade free-trade regulations (and we always thought Mr. Wolfowitz was a consistent believer in neo-conservative principles!), but alienating the very countries that Washington is now trying to court seems like a bigger threat to American security.

      It`s beside the point, because, face it, who out there really believes that some French company would be awarded a contract at the expense of, say, Halliburton? Halliburton is charging American occupation authorities $2.64 a gallon - and that may be a low estimate - to bring in gasoline from Kuwait. Any company that can get away with a feat like that in the oil-rich Middle East doesn`t need to worry about foreign competition for taxpayers` dollars.
      Mr. Wolfowitz pressed for a war in Iraq for years. He began pressing for it in earnest after Sept. 11, 2001, from his new perch as deputy defense secretary. He argued that a snap American invasion would implant democracy in Iraq faster than you could say Ali Baba, and that quick as a wink a new spirit of republican government and respect for property would spread throughout the Arab lands.

      What we have instead is a place where U.S. soldiers are killed every day by a foe who still hasn`t really been identified yet, where one-third of the Iraqi security force trained at the Pentagon`s behest just quit (taking their training with them, presumably), where people throughout the Arab world find a reason to join in denunciations of the United States, and where the administration keeps finding new ways to alienate potential Western allies.

      It`s time for Mr. Wolfowitz to go.



      Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 21:53:02
      Beitrag Nr. 10.351 ()
      Senator John McCain ist Republikaner und war der Hauptkonkurrent von Bush um die Präsidentschaftskanditatur.

      Posted on Thu, Dec. 11, 2003

      Sen. McCain Criticizes Guantanamo Delays

      IAN JAMES
      Associated Press

      SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Sen. John McCain said Thursday he is concerned about the failure to move ahead with prisoners` trials at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where after nearly two years the military has allowed just one detainee to meet his lawyers.

      Speaking by phone from Washington a day after touring Guantanamo, McCain said "bureaucratic inertia and fear of making a wrong decision" led to delays in the cases of some 660 people held on suspicion of links to Afghanistan`s ousted Taliban government or the al-Qaida terror network.

      "I think the conditions are adequate, in some cases more than adequate. But my concern is the disposition of the prisoners," McCain told The Associated Press.

      "The bureaucratic process has been unnecessarily slow," said McCain, who was a prisoner of war for nearly six years in Vietnam. "These cases have to be disposed of one way or another. After keeping someone two years, a decision should be made."

      The Arizona Republican`s comments came as an Australian prisoner, David Hicks, was expected to become the first detainee at the base to be allowed to meet with defense lawyers.

      His Australian lawyer, Stephen Kenny, said this week that he planned a five-day visit starting Thursday, along with Hicks` military-appointed attorney, Marine Corps Maj. Michael Mori.

      Hicks, 28, is one of six prisoners designated by President Bush as possible candidates for trial by military tribunals.

      He was allegedly fighting with the Taliban when captured in Afghanistan, and also allegedly threatened to kill an American at Guantanamo. He still faces no formal charges.

      Kenny said in Washington on Monday that he hopes to discuss with Hicks "what has happened, what his rights are, what may happen in the future, and to advise him of what his options are."

      U.S. officials assured Australia that Hicks would not face the death penalty or have his conversations with lawyers monitored.

      McCain said he will be "communicating with the Pentagon my concerns about the failure to move the process forward."

      "I plan to urge that we have hearings," McCain said. He said some detainees are surely "killers" and that "there are others who should clearly be released."

      McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, visited along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

      McCain noted the Bush administration is under pressure from other countries, such as Britain and Australia, to deal with the cases of the detainees from 44 nations.

      Sweden, which has one citizen at Guantanamo, announced Wednesday it will seek to host an international seminar in the coming months on whether the United States is violating international law by keeping prisoners without charge.

      U.S. officials classify the captives as unlawful combatants and say important intelligence is still being gleaned in interrogations.

      Kenny says he believes a U.S. Supreme Court decision to hear a case involving Hicks and other British and Kuwaiti detainees may have prompted the U.S. government to allow Hicks to see lawyers. The court agreed last month to consider whether foreigners held at Guantanamo should have access to American courts.






      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      © 2003 AP Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
      http://www.grandforks.com
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 21:55:25
      Beitrag Nr. 10.352 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 22:24:11
      Beitrag Nr. 10.353 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 22:55:23
      Beitrag Nr. 10.354 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      A Baghdad Thanksgiving`s Lingering Aftertaste


      By Dana Milbank

      Friday, December 12, 2003; Page A35


      Stars and Stripes, the Pentagon-authorized newspaper of the U.S. military, is bucking for a court-martial.

      When last we checked in on Stripes, it was reporting on a survey it did of troops in Iraq, finding that half of those questioned described their units` moral as low and their training as insufficient and said they did not plan to reenlist.

      With the Pentagon just recovering from that, Stars and Stripes is blowing the whistle on President Bush`s Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad, saying the cheering soldiers who met him were pre-screened and others showing up for a turkey dinner were turned away.

      The newspaper, quoting two officials with the Army`s 1st Armored Division in an article last week, reported that "for security reasons, only those preselected got into the facility during Bush`s visit. . . . The soldiers who dined while the president visited were selected by their chain of command, and were notified a short time before the visit."

      The paper also published a letter to the editor from Sgt. Loren Russell, who wrote of the heroism of his soldiers and then added: "(I) magine their dismay when they walked 15 minutes to the Bob Hope Dining Facility, only to find that they were turned away from their evening meal because they were in the wrong unit. . . . They understand that President Bush ate there and that upgraded security was required. But why were only certain units turned away?"

      Russell added that his soldiers "chose to complain amongst themselves and eat MREs, even after the chow hall was reopened for `usual business` at 9 p.m. As a leader myself, I`d guess that other measures could have been taken to allow for proper security and still let the soldiers have their meal."

      The 1st Armored Division officials told Stars and Stripes that all soldiers had the opportunity to get a proper Thanksgiving meal -- possibly more than the newspaper`s editors will get in Guantanamo next year.

      It`s been two weeks since Bush made that secret trip to Iraq, but the flight itself continues to cause turbulence.

      The controversy began when the White House said Air Force One was spotted by a British Airways plane but the president`s pilots told the dubious British Airways pilots by radio that they were flying a Gulfstream V. The White House later said there was no British Airways plane involved and the conversation took place between British air traffic control and another plane while Air Force One was "off the western coast of England."

      As it happens, Air Force One was flying across the North Sea, off the eastern coast of England, when it was spotted by the mystery plane, a German charter jet. But that`s being picky.

      Of more concern, air traffic controllers in Britain are seething over the flight, in which the president`s 747, falsely identified as a Gulfstream, traveled through British airspace. Prospect, the controllers union in the United Kingdom, says the flight broke international regulations, posed a potential safety threat and exposed a weakness in the air defense system that could be exploited by terrorists.

      "The overriding concern is if the president`s men who did this can dupe air traffic control, what`s to stop a highly organized terrorist group from duping air traffic control?" asked David Luxton, Prospect`s national secretary. Luxton said the flight was in "breach" of regulations against filing false flight plans set by the International Civil Aviation Organization, which he said should apply to a military aircraft using civilian airspace.

      Luxton said that by identifying itself as a Gulfstream V instead of the much larger 747, Air Force One could have put itself and other airplanes in danger. The Gulfstream can climb faster and maneuver more nimbly than a 747, which means controllers could have assumed the president`s plane was capable of a collision-avoiding maneuver that it couldn`t actually do. And the "wake vortex" of a 747, much larger than a Gulfstream`s, could jeopardize smaller planes that were told by unsuspecting controllers to follow in the mislabeled plane`s wake.

      As it happens, Air Force One passed without incident. But Luxton said that`s beside the point. "It`s important air traffic control have an accurate picture of what`s up there in the sky they`re controlling," he said.

      The White House has declined to elaborate further on the flight plan and other security measures for the trip.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 23:20:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.355 ()
      December 12, 2003
      Bush Says Halliburton Will Have to Repay Any Overcharges
      By DAVID STOUT

      ASHINGTON, Dec. 12 - President Bush said today that the Halliburton Company would have to pay back any money it might have have overcharged the government for work it is doing in Iraq.

      ``If there`s an overcharge, like we think there is, we expect that money to be repaid,`` Mr. Bush said this afternoon as he and his chief spokesman sought to distance the White House from a continuing controversy over Iraq-related work being done by Halliburton, which was once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

      Alluding to a Pentagon audit that has found that Halliburton may indeed have overcharged the government by some $61 million for fuel deliveries, the president said: ``I appreciate the Pentagon looking after the taxpayers` money. They felt like there was an overcharge issue.``

      It was not entirely clear today just how much in supposed overcharges may already have been paid by the government to Halliburton, a huge oil-field services company. But it was clear that questions about the politically well-connected company may continue to nettle the White House.

      Asked whether Halliburton might be ``an albatross around this administration`s neck, `` the president replied: ``I expect anybody doing business with the United States government to be transparent, and to give the taxpayers a good return on their money. That`s what I expect. And if anybody is overcharging the government, we expect them to repay that money.``

      The preliminary Pentagon audit has found that a Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, may have overcharged the government for fuel deliveries under lucrative no-bid construction contracts. But Pentagon officials have said the company did not appear to have profited from overcharges but rather may have initially paid a subcontractor too much.

      Halliburton has vigorously denied any overcharges, declaring in a statement that it welcomes ``a thorough review of any and all of our government contracts,`` and asserting that the Pentagon inquiry is routine in any event. The company has said, too, that fuel deliveries in a combat zone are inherently costly.

      Earlier today, the president`s chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, tried to characterize Halliburton and its contracts as the bailiwick of the Pentagon, not the White House.

      ``We expect the Pentagon to look at this and get to the bottom of it,`` Mr. McClellan said.

      Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also encountered the Halliburton issue, in a generally friendly question-answer session at a meeting today of the National Conference of State Legislatures in the capital.

      A Minnesota lawmaker said she was concerned about apparent overcharging by Halliburton and urged Mr. Rumsfeld to look into it personally. Mr. Rumsfeld replied that he was not ``intimately knowledgeable`` about the affair.

      ``We`ve got auditors that crawl all over these things,`` Mr. Rumsfeld said. He emphasized that while there had been disagreements over charges, there had not yet been any actual overpayments.

      Mr. McClellan, when asked whether the White House was planning any changes to guard against similar problems, indicated that no new measures were contemplated.

      ``This was a matter, a contracting matter, that was decided at the Pentagon,`` Mr. McClellan said at a news briefing. ``There are some oversight measures that are in place to make sure that tax dollars are protected, to make sure that tax dollars are being spent appropriately.

      ``And from our standpoint, we expect those measures and procedures that are in place for oversight purposes to be followed,`` Mr. McClellan went on. ``And we expect the Pentagon to look at this and get to the bottom of it.``

      Further questions on the Houston-based Halliburton, where Vice President Cheney was chief executive until he joined the 2000 Bush ticket, should be directed to the Pentagon, Mr. McClellan said.

      Democrats have had a field day with the Halliburton affair, asserting that the company is ``gouging taxpayers,`` as Representative Henry A. Waxman of California put it.

      Mr. McClellan was asked today whether, in retrospect, it would have been better if Halliburton had never gotten any contracts. ``It`s a Pentagon decision,`` he replied. ``It`s a Pentagon matter.``



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 23:29:00
      Beitrag Nr. 10.356 ()
      December 11, 2003
      Q&A: James M. Lindsay on Foreign Policy in the 2004 Presidential Election

      From the Council on Foreign Relations, December 11, 2003


      James M. Lindsay is vice president, Maurice R. Greenberg chair, and director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served on the National Security Council in 1996-97 and is the co-author, with Ivo H. Daalder, of the recently released "America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy." On December 10, 2003, Lindsay participated in a Council-sponsored conference call to brief reporters and editorial-page editors at U.S. newspapers on the role foreign policy will play in the 2004 presidential race. Following is an edited transcript of the briefing:

      It`s pretty clear that foreign policy issues will be important in next year`s election. Will they be the decisive issues in the campaign?

      Foreign policy has the potential to be a decisive issue. Whether or not it actually will be depends a lot upon what happens between now and the election. What is striking is the difference foreign policy will play in the election of 2004 versus the election of 2000. If you go back to the campaign in 2000 and look at the polls asking Americans what they were worried about, only somewhere between 2 percent and 5 percent of those queried named anything to do with foreign policy. Today, you can find numbers ranging from 20 percent to 40 percent. And, clearly, the dominant issue is going to be Iraq.

      My question is about the Democratic candidates` calls to internationalize the effort in Iraq. How would they get the United Nations involved in managing the political transition?

      Well, I won`t dare to speak for the Democratic candidates in terms of their specific proposals. But the general argument made by Democratic candidates is that we should internationalize the effort in Iraq and that they will be able to do so--and bring the Germans and the French and other powers on board--largely because they will represent a break from the foreign policy of the Bush administration. The one thing to keep in mind, though, is that if a Democratic candidate were to win the election, he or she is not going to take office until January of 2005, when the political situation in Iraq could look much different than it does today.

      Of the 20 percent to 40 percent of poll respondents for whom foreign policy is important, how many think that it`s important to get out of Iraq or how many think that it`s important to win in Iraq? In other words, can the issue help President Bush or is it bound to hurt him?

      We don`t know, is the most direct answer to your question. A couple of things are happening at once. We`ve done some polling, but the polling really hasn`t explored this question in sufficient depth to allow us to draw conclusions. It is important to recognize going forward when we`re looking at Iraq that the president can be hurt by Iraq if he is unable to persuade the American public--or keep them persuaded--that he has a plan for both removing American troops and leaving behind a stable Iraq. The arguments many Democrats will push, particularly if current trends continue, are that the administration does not have a plan for producing victory in Iraq and that the president has bungled the opportunity to rebuild a stable Iraq. The burden that the Democrats have is that it won`t be sufficient simply to present a critique of the administration`s policy. Democrats are going to have to be able to persuade the public that they have a solution and can be trusted to deliver on it.

      On that score, Democrats face an uphill battle. If you look at poll results going back a number of years, the public tends to trust Republicans more than Democrats on foreign policy issues. In that respect, Democrats have a credibility problem, and they`re going to have to be able to persuade people that not only do they have an answer, but they can also be counted on to deliver it. It`s simply not enough to criticize the administration`s policy. For example, in the 1972 election, the Vietnam War was very unpopular with large segments of the American public. But at the end of the day Democrat George McGovern, the anti-war candidate, was soundly defeated by Richard Nixon.

      There is a claim that the Democrats need a candidate who can credibly assert that he can lead the country at a time of war. That`s the argument that`s being made for Senator John Kerry and for retired General Wesley Clark in particular, and some are saying the issue is a liability for Governor Howard Dean. How do you view that?

      If we assume that the economy doesn`t collapse, but either goes along at a moderate pace or grows rather robustly, it`s clear that the Democrats have to persuade the public that they can be trusted on national security. This is a hurdle that all the Democratic candidates need to get over. I think it`s a mistake to assume, as is often suggested in some Democratic circles, that biography is sufficient to get a Democratic candidate over that hurdle. It`s not at all clear that that`s how the American public sees the issue, that because John Kerry conducted himself honorably in Vietnam, he is therefore bulletproof on national security issues or that General Clark is bulletproof on national security issues. At the end of the day, the public is going to be less persuaded by biography and more by the concrete plans the candidates have for resolving these issues. It`s clear that on the Republican side, many are salivating over the opportunity to run on national security issues precisely because of the poll results indicating that the public tends to have more trust in Republicans on these issues. Still, a lot of things can happen, in Iraq or more broadly in the war on terrorism, that could shake those calculations.

      What about other foreign policy issues in the campaign? Trade and international economics, for example.

      As I said, Iraq is going to be the dominant issue, at least on a national level. In certain states and among certain constituencies, though, other foreign policy issues are going to be important. Trade is going to be critical, particularly in several of the southern states where there are important textile interests. It could also be very important in the Northeast and the Midatlantic, in states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia, as it relates to questions dealing with the steel industry and potential issues related to global warming. How these issues play will depend upon positions the president takes. One of the interesting trade questions now going forward is whether the Bush administration will stick to its proposal to create a CAFTA--a Central American Free Trade Agreement--which would lower trade barriers among the United States and the countries of Central America. This creates potential political problems for the president in states like South Carolina, which have large textile industries that see themselves as being threatened by such an agreement.

      Other issues that are likely to come up in specific constituencies would include Cuba, a perennial of American elections. The issue doesn`t matter to most Americans, but it can matter a lot to Cuban-Americans, and they can be a swing group in the pivotal electoral state of Florida. Immigration could be an issue in some of the states with large Latino communities.

      The administration would argue that it has presented a plan for stability in Iraq and eventual withdrawal. But there have been setbacks. How do you see that playing out over the next 11 months?

      Your question points to the potential vulnerability facing President Bush, which is not that he didn`t have a plan, but he`s had several plans. And the more recent plans tend to contradict the assumptions of the earlier plans. The problem from the White House point of view is that changing your plans could look like prudent adaptation to changing events but that at some point that could turn into a perception that the events are running you and you really aren`t in control of the situation. I think it`s pretty clear from the polls we have right now most of the public still has some faith in the president. There`s some unhappiness about the handling of the war in Iraq. The president`s poll numbers aren`t as high as they were last May. But, from the White House point of view, there`s some reason to be optimistic about the numbers. The real question is, are we going to reach a tipping point where the public comes to the conclusion that the president doesn`t have a clear plan and he`s sort of chasing after events? That would depend a lot upon what happens on the ground. Indeed, what makes it really difficult for the administration is that getting Iraq right is a really tough thing to do. Nobody should underestimate the nature of the challenge we face, because it`s not only a matter of dealing with the insurgency but also the very difficult challenge of trying to knit together Iraq`s disparate communities into a stable, coherent whole that doesn`t need American troops to keep it propped up.

      Does the American public seem concerned that the United States is in these constant food fights with our major allies? And secondly, how much difference would the vice-presidential choice make on security issues? If Howard Dean gets the nomination and picks somebody like Wesley Clark, how much difference would that make?

      As to your first question, there`s not a lot of poll data I`ve seen that really gets to that question. Generally, I would say that most people don`t pay close enough attention to the issues to be worried about it. But even if they are worried about it, it`s not clear it`s the sort of issue that would affect how people vote. As for vice presidential selections, it`s not clear that these choices swing that many voters because, at the end of the day, people are voting for the president, not for the vice president. But of course the critical question here is how big the margin will be between President Bush and his Democratic rival. If it`s a very tight race, even swinging a few votes could be pivotal.

      Is foreign policy generally not an issue in presidential campaigns?

      Foreign policy is going to be more salient in 2004 than it has been in most campaigns. Having said that, I think it`s important to keep in mind that throughout much of the Cold War, elections didn`t turn on foreign policy. But there was always an expectation that whoever the candidates were, for whichever party, they had to meet a minimum threshold in terms of their ability to handle national security. Indeed, because national security tended to be a high-profile issue through much of the Cold War era, many of the people who ran for president had fairly substantial resumes when it came to foreign affairs. When you got to the 1990s and the end of the Soviet Union, foreign policy ceased to figure very prominently in presidential elections. Clearly today, because of September 11, foreign policy is going to figure quite prominently.

      So even though Iraq is going poorly, many people would say the fact that foreign policy`s going to be an issue in 2004 could work to Bush`s advantage?

      It could work to Bush`s advantage in the way that Richard Nixon was able to handily defeat George McGovern in 1972. Again, that was a case in which the war was very unpopular. McGovern was able to capture the Democratic nomination because his critique of that war mobilized parts of the Democratic Party. But ultimately he was unable to persuade Americans that the critique was enough, that he had a sensible plan to replace the Nixon administration`s plan. That`s the challenge any Democratic candidate is going to face, persuading the American public that he has a workable way of approaching foreign policy. Many people are betting the candidates can`t do that. I think it`s very premature to reach that judgment.

      Do you see any development issues--healthcare, education of women and girls, other topics that some countries are deeply involved in through the United Nations--as voting issues next year?

      They`re likely to be voting issues for relatively small segments of the public, and they`re likely to be voting issues for people who would have voted for a particular candidate under any circumstance. I think that the broader American public won`t make decisions based on the issues you named. President Bush might argue that he is taking the lead in increasing American foreign aid, that he has increased spending on HIV and AIDS, that he`s trying to lead an initiative to end slavery. The Democratic candidate might argue that the administration hasn`t done enough, that we need different types of policies. But I think in some sense the candidates will be speaking to communities that already support them.



      Copyright 2003 |
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.12.03 23:37:07
      Beitrag Nr. 10.357 ()
      December 12, 2003
      Web of connections: the personal and business ties between Texas, Washington and the Middle East
      By Stephen Fidler and Thomas Catan

      In the summer of 1992, while his father was still president of the US, Neil Bush took his family on a trip to Disneyland in France. The flap over his role in the collapse of the Silverado Savings and Loan bank, which had cost the taxpayer $1bn, had died down. According to a person who recalls seeing photographs showing the president`s second-youngest son and his family surrounded by various Disney characters, the Bushes seem to have enjoyed themselves.

      The trip had been arranged and paid for by the Paris office of Jamal Daniel, a Syrian-American businessman who keeps a low profile but who boasts important connections with leaders and their families throughout the Middle East. Mr Daniel`s name surfaced this month when court papers from Neil Bush`s acrimonious divorce proceedings found their way into the press.

      While many newspapers focused on the lurid revelations of "sex romps" on his trips in Asia, Mr Bush`s deposition also gave important insights into his business dealings. Among other things, Mr Bush said he was co-chairman of the Houston-based Crest Investment Corporation and was paid $15,000 every three months for providing "miscellaneous consulting services . . . such as answering phone calls when Jamail [sic] Daniel, the other co-chairman, called and asked for advice".

      Mr Daniel started cultivating his relationship with the Bush family at about the time that Neil was caught up in the Silverado scandal and facing a lawsuit, according to a US businessman who knows him. Mr Bush denied any wrongdoing but was reprimanded by federal regulators and paid $50,000 in a court settlement.

      "Jamal likes to ingratiate himself with family members of whoever`s in power," the US businessman says. "He squired Neil Bush around . . . Then he also got close to Pappa Bush, George H., when he came back to Houston . . . Socially there were pictures together and he was very supportive of George W`s campaign when he ran for governor."

      Another person, a Jordanian lawyer who works on international business transactions in the Middle East, describes Mr Daniel as "a wheeler-dealer, somebody who uses the name of the Bush family to get business and to encourage people to do business with him".

      Working closely with Mr Bush and Mr Daniel has been a third man: John Howland, a Houston businessman whose companies have suffered bankruptcy and who, on one occasion, was alleged by the owner of a company he ran of self-dealing and of misusing company funds - an allegation he denies. The three have worked together at Crest, where Mr Howland acted as executive vice-president.

      Mr Bush, Mr Howland and Mr Daniel have also been directors of a Swiss company called Silvermat, a financially troubled subsidiary of Crest that was set up in 2000 to supply the hospitality industry. Mr Howland is listed as the chairman of Silvermat and Mr Bush and Mr Daniel as having retired from the board.

      There is evidence that Mr Bush has received financing and contacts for his personal business ventures from Mr Daniel. Crest`s company secretary, Joseph Peacock - a man involved in many of Mr Daniel`s other companies - was listed as one of the original investors in Ignite!, Mr Bush`s educational software company.

      According to a businessman in the Middle East, Mr Daniel sometimes introduces himself as one of the founding members of Ignite! and has lobbied potential investors on Neil Bush`s behalf. Mr Bush went on a Middle East trip in early 2002 to seek contributions for his company. He has successfully secured funds from people connected to at least three ruling families in the Middle East.

      Other Middle Eastern businessmen said Mr Daniel or others in his family had used Mr Bush`s name to secure investors in projects. Some of these have ended in disputes among the investors. Mr Bush had written letters, including to Ali Abdullah Saleh, president of Yemen, recommending investments.

      The businessman said Mr Bush opened doors with prominent figures in the Middle East, but they did not see him getting involved in details of the projects he was promoting. "They fly around in private planes and get big meetings. When they hire Neil Bush, I don`t know if he knows what`s going on," said one.

      Today, Neil Bush`s business partners have a new venture, in keeping with the times. New Bridge Strategies was set up this year to help companies secure contracts in Iraq following the war. Mr Howland is chairman and chief executive of the company, while Mr Daniel is a member of the advisory board.

      The company briefly hit the headlines this autumn because of the impressive roster of Republican heavyweights on its board, most of whom are linked to one or other of the Bush administrations or to the family itself. The company`s website has not been shy about advertising its contacts in both the Middle East and Washington.

      "The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington DC., and on the ground in Iraq," it said. That phrasing has since been changed.

      The list of directors and advisory board members is indeed impressive. Joe Allbaugh, the chairman of the company, was head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) until March 2003 and before that, chief of staff for George W. Bush while he was Texas governor. As national manager for the Bush-Cheney election campaign in 2000, he was one side of the "Iron Triangle" of aides credited with propelling him into the presidency.

      Ed Rogers, the company`s vice-chairman and director, was a top aide to George H. W. Bush while he was in the White House. Lanny Griffith, another director, also worked in Mr Bush senior`s government and on his election campaigns. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who was elected last month as governor of Mississippi, was on the board of Milestone Merchant Partners, a Washington-based private equity fund affiliated with New Bridge, according to the New Bridge website.

      A spokesman for Mr Barbour, who is also close to the Bush family, said he resigned from that position in February.

      All three are partners at Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, a Republican lobbying firm in Washington, DC. The firm shares an office with New Bridge at 1275 Pennsylvannia Avenue, on the 10th floor.

      Milestone, meanwhile, is hardly bereft of political contacts itself. Richard Breeden, former chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the man appointed to sort out the mess at WorldCom, is on the company`s advisory board. So is Ed Mathias, co-founder of The Carlyle Group, the world`s best connected private equity firm, which some people have seen as a forerunner of New Bridge.

      Next to those names, John Howland and Jamal Daniel are relatively unknown. Together in many business transactions connecting Texas with the Middle East, they have been linked to contentious deals, some of which have ended up in court.

      Mr Howland is a former US air force officer. He failed to become a pilot because of a slight eyesight problem and ended his military career as a launch control officer in nuclear missile bunkers.

      He said he had met Mr Daniel in about 1989. Mr Daniel`s family, Christians originating from northern Syria, is said to have been involved in the founding of the Ba`ath Party and sustained links with it in both Syria and Iraq even after being expelled from Syria in about 1966 after Hafez al-Assad came to power. Mr Daniel has told friends that when he was young Tariq Aziz, later foreign minister of Iraq, was a visitor to the family home.

      Mr Daniel attended Pepperdine University in the US and then was awarded an MBA from the University of Texas at Arlington, before settling down in Houston. With much of his family still in Geneva, where they settled after leaving Syria, he leads the family`s US-based wing and represents its businesses there. The family holds a sizeable US property portfolio via a range of interlinked companies - Uniteg, Finial, Carnavon and Grailwood - as well as some energy businesses.

      According to businessmen who know him, Mr Daniel boasts connections with the families of the rulers of at least five Middle East countries: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. At a conference in Washington in April 2000, Mr Daniel was introduced as a person "proud to call [Yemeni] President Saleh a friend."

      Before he became president and chief executive officer of New Bridge this year, Mr Howland`s business career had met controversy.

      In 1997, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with his then employer, Mohammed Bin Issa Al-Jaber, a Saudi businessman, over allegations that more than $12m went missing from his company while Mr Howland was in charge. In a lawsuit filed in Houston, Mr Jaber said he had originally been approached with a business proposal by Mr Howland while the latter was president of the Texas-based company, American Rice Inc.

      The idea had been to set up a company in Saudi Arabia that would import rice from American Rice and then package it at a plant to be built in Jeddah, enabling the owners to sell it more cheaply than rival companies. In 1992, Mr Jaber set up Rice Milling Trading Investments (RMTI) and hired Mr Howland and another Houston associate, George Prchal, giving them full authority to run it.

      "I placed full trust in John Howland to the extent that he was the sole signatory on RMTI`s bank account and expenditure made through him on RMTIs projects was in excess of $50m," Mr Jaber said in a 1997 statement, according to court documents.

      Mr Howland drew up a contract with American Rice to be the company`s exclusive supplier. What Mr Jaber did not know was that his top two executives were still working for American Rice, meaning that they were on both sides of the negotiating table. Mr Jaber stated that Mr Howland was receiving $250,000 a year for running RMTI and a further $100,000 from its supplier, American Rice. The result, industry experts told the court, was a highly unusual 50-year contract heavily biased in American Rice`s favour.

      At the same time, Mr Howland had a third role working for another company that RMTI saw as a potential competitor and which Mr Daniel represented in the US. RMTI`s investigators found business cards showing Mr Howland and Mr Prchal as representing this company, Levant Grain, which was constructing a rice mill in a free zone at the Syrian port of Tartous.

      Mr Howland said on Thursday he had been an officer of Levant, and that Levant was wholly owned by Crest, Mr Daniel`s company. But he said there had been no conflict of interest. However, Mr Daniel told the court he was an unpaid adviser to Levant, which was owned by a company linked to relatives of his.

      When the Jeddah plant was nearing completion, Mr Howland set up a $12m credit facility, on behalf of RMTI, with the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, to finance American Rice`s sales. In 1996 a banker working for NCB informed Mr Jaber, to his surprise, that the $12m letter of credit had been exhausted.

      In 1997, according to court documents, Mr Howland told NCB that Mr Jaber had financial problems but that he and Mr Prchal would be willing to take over RMTI once it had gone bankrupt. He had found, he said, interested financial backers.

      "Howland indicated that he would do so only after the equity interests of Mohamed bin Issa al-Jaber had been wiped out," Donald Prescott, the banker he approached, said. "This concerned me since I knew Howland was still the senior officer of RMTI, whose major shareholder was Mohamed bin Issa al-Jaber."

      Through Mr Howland and Mr Prchal, RMTI also invested in two projects in the Caribbean of which Mr Jaber said he was unaware. In one, it took a minority stake in the Antillean Rice Mills, which operated a rice mill in Bonaire in the Netherlands Antilles, at a price other company officials later judged to be far too high. It also financed construction of a butter plant in nearby Curaçao that was built but stood idle because it was never allowed to export to the European Union.

      RMTI subsequently found more than a dozen offshore bank accounts linked to these companies, in the Queensgate Bank in the Cayman Islands, in Panama and elsewhere. Mr Jaber estimated his losses in these ventures had run into a further several million dollars.

      The case was settled after negotiations - with payments to Mr Jaber totalling more than $3.5m - and the judge ordered many of the documents sealed. Parties to the case say they are still constrained from talking about it because of a gag order. American Rice went bankrupt soon after.

      American Rice, together with Mr Howland and Mr Prchal, countersued RMTI. Kerry Blair, a lawyer for John Howland, described the allegations in the suit as "totally frivolous". Mr Howland said yesterday he did not know what happened to the $12m letter of credit. He said RMTI alleged that American Rice took some of the money - which to his knowledge was not true - "but they never made [the allegation] against me".

      American Rice is now under new management following its emergence from bankruptcy.

      So how did some of the best-connected Republican figures in Washington end up in business with this controversial pair of Texas businessmen? The answer seems to be: Haley Barbour.

      Like many agricultural firms, rice companies benefit from political connections. Mr Howland met Mr Barbour while the latter was at the Reagan White House. When Mr Barbour left the administration, one of his first jobs as a consultant was for American Rice. He was hired by Mr Howland. It was through him that Mr Barbour got to know Mr Daniel. Through a spokesperson, Mr Barbour declined requests for an interview.

      What is clear is that he helped make the connection between Mr Howland and Mr Daniel and the Washington heavyweights that give New Bridge its political heft. His firm was also instrumental in bringing other companies into New Bridge`s fold, including Diligence, a security firm set up by former US and British intelligence officers that is affiliated to the company.

      Barbour, Griffith & Rogers provided initial funding for Diligence, said Nick Day, a former UK intelligence officer and co-founder of the company. Like New Bridge, Diligence was given also space at BGR`s office in Washington DC. BGR also provided the company with its well-connected chairman, Richard Burt, former US ambassador to Berlin, as well as its impressive advisory board. Many of the names on that advisory board - including Carlyle`s Ed Mathias - overlap with those of New Bridge and Milestone.

      The relationship between the companies became even closer after New Bridge found the investor for Diligence`s new business in Iraq. In return for finding the investor - the Kuwaiti businessman and member of parliament, Mohammed Al-Saqer - New Bridge got a minority shareholding in the new Iraqi security firm. Diligence Iraq had already escorted some of New Bridge`s clients into Iraq, he said.

      The idea behind the founding of New Bridge shows an odd symmetry between Washington and the Middle East: that in both places what matters is the ability to exploit connections to well-placed individuals.

      According to Middle East specialists, the disclosures about New Bridge will not help US efforts in the region. "In the Middle East, it will be received as confirming the weary cynicism prevailing in the area about US intentions in launching the attack on Iraq in the first place," said Richard Murphy, senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York.



      © Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2003.
      "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of The Financial Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 00:00:07
      Beitrag Nr. 10.358 ()


      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 11:10:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.359 ()
      The same old racket in Iraq
      To the victors, the spoils: Bush`s colonialism will only deepen resistance

      Tariq Ali
      Saturday December 13, 2003
      The Guardian

      Iraq remains a country of unbearable suffering, the sort that only soldiers and administrators acting on behalf of states and governments are capable of inflicting on their fellow humans. It is the first country where we can begin to study the impact of a 21st-century colonisation. This takes place in an international context of globalisation and neo-liberal hegemony. If the economy at home is determined by the primacy of consumption, speculation as the main hub of economic activity and no inviolate domains of public provision, only a crazed utopian could imagine that a colonised Iraq would be any different.

      The state facilities that were so carefully targeted with bombs and shells have now to be reconstructed, but this time under the aegis of private firms, preferably American, though Blair and Berlusconi, and perhaps plucky Poland too, will not be forgotten at handouts time. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney`s old firm, Halliburton, awarded a contract (without any competition) to rebuild Iraq`s oil industry, is happily boosting profits by charging the US government $2.64 a gallon for the fuel it trucks into Iraq from Kuwait. The normal price per gallon in the region is 71 cents, but since the US taxpayer is footing the bill, nobody cares.

      The secret plan to privatise the country by selling off its assets to western corporations was drafted in February this year and surfaced in the Wall Street Journal, which helpfully explained that "for many conservatives, Iraq is now the test case for whether the United States can engender American-style free-market capitalism within the Arab world". Worried by the leaks, Bush and Blair issued a user-friendly joint statement on April 8, stressing that Iraq`s oil and other natural resources are "the patrimony of the people of Iraq, which should be used only for their benefit". But who decides on behalf of the Iraqi people - Bremer/Chalabi or Chalabi/Bremer?

      Iraq`s state-run health service, which, prior to the killer sanctions, was the most advanced in the region, is now being privatised, courtesy of Abt Associates, a US firm specialising in privatisations that has clearly been forgiven its record of "invoice irregularities" by its Washington patron. Its first priority is instructive. It has demanded armoured cars for its staff. Khudair Abbas, the orthopaedic surgeon from Ilford and "minister for health" in the puppet government, was recently in London boasting of the state-of-the-art hospitals they would soon build to create a "two-tier health system". Sound familiar?

      This week Bush amplified US policy by insisting on the time-honoured norm: to the victor, the spoils. Why should those countries (Germany, France, China, Russia, etc) that had refused to make the necessary blood sacrifice expect a share of the loot? The EU is screaming "foul", and its bureaucrats are suggesting that by denying the non-belligerent states equal opportunities to exploit an occupied Iraq, the US is withdrawing itself from the groove of capitalist legality. These arguments won`t carry much weight in Washington, but if China, Russia and France insist that, as the occupying powers, the US and Britain should immediately meet the debts incurred by the former Iraqi regime, there might be some basis for negotiation. A few bones in the shape of juicy subcontracts could be thrown in the direction of China and the EU, but only if they stop whingeing and behave themselves in public.

      On its own, the privatisation plan, if implemented successfully, would be a disaster for the bulk of Iraqi citizens (as is the case in most of Latin America and central Asia), but the situation here is unique. These "reforms" are being imposed at tank point. Many Iraqis perceive them as a recolonisation of the country, and they have provoked an effective and methodical resistance. On the military level, the situation continues to deteriorate, thus remaining the source of numerous internal difficulties and sustaining friction and strife within the west.

      In a recent dispatch from Baghdad in the New York Review of Books, Mark Danner reported that in the two months (October and November) he spent in the occupied city, the number of daily attacks on US troops had more than doubled, from 15 to 35, and behind the bombings of other targets "one can see a rather methodical intention to sever, one by one, with patience, care and precision, the fragile lines that still tie the occupation authority to the rest of the world". How will the occupying armies respond? In the only way they can, with the traditional methods of colonial rule. The Israelis are trying their best to help, but they haven`t been too successful themselves.

      On December 7, the front page of the New York Times carried a report from Dexter Filkins in Baghdad. Its opening paragraph could have applied to virtually any major colonial conflict of the past century: "As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire. In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning relatives of suspected guerrillas in hope of pressing insurgents to turn themselves in."

      During the first phase of European colonisation, it was the companies that were provided with a charter to raise their own armies to defend their commercial interests. The British and Dutch East India companies took India and Java. Later, their countries` empires moved in to take control and consolidate the gains. It was different in the Americas. Here it was always a case of "send in the marines". General Smedley Butler, a much-decorated and celebrated US war hero of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with 34 years` military service, later reflected on his campaigns and produced a telling volume entitled War as a Racket. He explained his central thesis thus: "I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism... I helped make Honduras `right` for American fruit companies in 1903. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long."

      The 21st-century colonial model appears to be a combination of the two approaches. Specialist companies are now encouraged to provide "security". They employ the mercenaries, and their profits are ensured by the state that hires them. They are backed up by the real army and, more importantly, by air power, to help defeat the enemy. But none of this will work if the population remains hostile. And large-scale repression only helps to unite the population against the occupiers. The fear in Washington is that the Iraqi resistance might attempt a sensational hit just before the next presidential election. The fear in the Arab east is that Bush and Cheney might escalate the conflict to retain the White House in 2004. Both fears may well be justified.

      · Tariq Ali`s latest book, Bush in Babylon: The Re-colonisation of Iraq, is published by Verso

      tariq.ali3@btinternet.com


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 11:13:44
      Beitrag Nr. 10.360 ()
      Cheney oil firm accused of overcharging $61m in Iraq
      Julian Borger in Washington
      Saturday December 13, 2003
      The Guardian

      A Pentagon audit has found that Halliburton, the company formerly run by the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, overcharged the government by $61m (about £35m) for delivering petrol to Iraq.

      The Texan oil services company has denied the charges and defence officials said there was no evidence that it profited disproportionately from the overcharging, saying it simply passed on high prices charged by a sub-contractor.

      However, Democratic critics have pointed to army figures showing Halliburton charged 24 cents a gallon for imported petrol - nearly a tenth of the selling price - as a "mark-up" over and above the sub-contractors` charges, significantly higher than the profit margin of other companies.

      The audit also found that a Halliburton subsidiary had charged $67m too much for building army canteens in Iraq. The army refused to pay.

      President George Bush said the company would have to pay back any money accrued from overcharging, and promised to show openly that taxpayers` money was being diligently spent in Iraq.

      "If there`s an overcharge, like we think there is, we expect that money be repaid," he said. "We`re going to make sure that as we spend money in Iraq, it`s spent well, it`s spent wisely."

      The preliminary audit has fanned a growing row over the division of Iraqi reconstruction contracts, which was aggravated earlier this week when the Pentagon excluded French, German, Russian and Canadian companies from bidding, because they were not coalition partners.

      The debate over the spoils of war is fuelled by Halliburton`s intimate link to the White House and by the fact that through its subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), it has been awarded a series of contracts without competitive bidding, potentially worth more than $15bn.

      A Halliburton spokeswoman, Wendy Hall, said the company was cooperating fully with the Pentagon auditors. It has defended its prices, pointing to the risks involved in driving fuel from Kuwait to Iraq. Several KBR employees have been killed or wounded.

      However, the per-gallon price charged to the government by KBR, $2.64, is more than twice what other suppliers were asking.

      Michael Thibault, the deputy director of the Defence Contract Audit Agency, said initial evidence suggested that overcharging was "potentially very substantial".

      Halliburton has until December 17 to respond. Pentagon officials did not name the sub-contractor which supplied the fuel.

      Henry Waxman, a Democratic congressman leading the attack against Halliburton, said the audit confirmed it had been "gouging taxpayers", and that "the White House has been letting them get away with it".

      He wrote to Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser: "Independent experts we consulted called these charges a huge rip-off of the taxpayer. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are at stake. Despite the enormous costs, the White House has refused to address this issue."

      The publicity surrounding the audit, however, failed to dampen investor enthusiasm for its stock. Its price has risen 85% in the past two years and rose again yesterday.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 11:15:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.361 ()
      US and British occupation of Iraq will end by July, says Blair`s envoy
      By Mary Dejevsky, Diplomatic Editor
      13 December 2003


      The US and British occupation of Iraq will end by 1 July next year at the latest, when the jointly-run civil administration, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), will be formally dissolved. Its authority and functions will be transferred to a joint US-British and Iraqi "Committee of Implementation", which will answer to the Iraqi transitional government.

      That was outlined by the Prime Minister`s special representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, in a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London yesterday. Sir Jeremy also warned that he foresaw little let-up in the attacks on US and British forces, some of which could be "spectacular". "I have not got a message of comfort in those terms for the British public," he said.

      The formal dissolution of the CPA by 1 July means that the military occupation of Iraq should be over in time for the Republican Party convention at the end of August, at which George Bush will be nominated for re-election, with the election itself in early November.

      The word "occupation" has been a liability for US and British forces in Iraq, who had hoped to be hailed as "liberators". While the dissolution of the CPA will technically end the foreign occupation of Iraq, Sir Jeremy stressed that dissolution did not mean the end of the US and British security commitment, and that would probably change little through the second half of 2004.

      The formal difference would be that, from 1 July - or sooner - executive and legislative authority would reside with the Iraqi transitional government and the troops would be in place "at the invitation" of the Iraqi government.

      With the timetable for the formal hand-over accelerating, Sir Jeremy stressed the desirability of broader international involvement in Iraq, especially of the UN, which, he said, had a "huge role" to play. He meets the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, in New York on Monday to discuss a much-increased role for the UN after June 2004.

      Sir Jeremy added that he would personally like to see the military forces in Iraq placed under Nato auspices after next June, because that would be a sign to the Iraqis that this was a "multilateral performance". But, he said, "the Americans will always be top dog in Iraq of the international forces, and must be."

      However, it was possible to discern doubts about whether and how the Iraqi Governing Council would keep to the proposed timetable. In particular, he expressed regret that the IGC had not taken "more international advice" before passing a statute last week that set up an Iraqi war crimes tribunal.

      He suggested that it would have been preferable for such a tribunal to have been set up under UN auspices. "The Iraqis wanted to do this their own way, without an international remit".
      13 December 2003 11:14



      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 11:18:14
      Beitrag Nr. 10.362 ()
      Mark Seddon: Is there another Guantanamo Bay on British soil?
      Diego Garcia is an island where terrorist suspects may be being `rendered` at a place called Camp Justice
      13 December 2003


      First there was Camp X-Ray on the American-owned base of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Now there is a Camp Justice in the Indian Ocean on the British-owned island of Diego Garcia, which is leased to the Americans.

      Camp Justice is officially a temporary home for US personnel supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, but satellite pictures of the camp show something rather more permanent and on a large scale. The island is home to American B52 and Stealth bombers - and has been home to US support staff and other military services since the early 1970s - but Camp Justice is new. The question is: what is the camp`s real purpose and how far does British jurisdiction stretch?

      The Liberal Democrats` Foreign Affairs spokesman, Menzies Campbell, might be interested to look at these same satellite pictures of Camp Justice. (They can be found on the website of a US-based security and risk assessment company, Global Security, on www.global security.org.) Last week Mr Campbell demanded to know whether information from "rendered" - in other words, tortured - al-Qa`ida and other suspects could be acceptable as evidence in a British court.

      He did so in the knowledge that serious claims have been made in The Washington Post that some suspects have been sent for "rendering" in Yemen, Jordan and Syria, where unjustifiable interrogation techniques are often used.

      More significantly for our own government, The Washington Post has claimed that prisoners are now being held on the island of Diego Garcia for "rendering", before being transferred to Camp X-Ray. These reports were strenuously denied by the then Foreign Office Minister, Baroness Amos. Replying to the former Labour MEP and veteran peace and justice campaigner, Professor Ken Coates, Baroness Amos had this to say: "The United States government would need to ask for our permission to bring any suspects to Diego Garcia. It has not done so."

      However, Time magazine has recently claimed that Riduan Isamuddin, otherwise known as Hambali, who is believed to be operations chief of Jemaah Isalmiyah - the group behind the Bali bombing - has or is still being held on Diego Garcia. Meanwhile, Mauritius-based campaigners Lindsey Collen and Ragini Kistnasamy, who seek the closure of the US military base on the island, had this message for campaigners in Britain: "Now there is the whole Guantano-isation of Diego Garcia, with people on terrorism charges and members of the Iraqi leadership being held there."

      When it comes to obfuscation over Diego Garcia, successive British governments have become past masters at doublespeak. It was a Labour defence minister, Lord Chalfont, who bundled the original inhabitants of the island to the slums of Port Louis in Mauritius, 30 years ago to make way for one of America`s largest military bases. Ever since ministers have sought to avoid embarrassment over a sordid episode they - and the courts - would rather forget.

      Barton Gelman, The Washington Post gumshoe, has this to say of Baroness Amos`s original denial: "Our experience with spokesmen most likely mirrors yours. They persuade themselves sometimes that they avoid a lie (while appearing to call something true, false) by using private definitions of ordinary language. What we have from our sources is that some al-Qa`ida suspects are indeed being held and questioned at Diego Garcia. The British Government could go some way to clearing this up by permitting an unrestricted visit."

      Chance would be a fine thing, if the experience of the original inhabitants were anything to go by. The islanders won their High Court battle to be allowed to return home three years ago. A fortnight ago I came across a group of them huddled in the rain in Parliament Square under their national flag - a Union flag on a shield supported by two turtles. They told me that they were still being prevented from returning because the US didn`t want them and the British say that the cost of restoring a basic infrastructure is too much.

      The island of Diego Garcia, some 17 square miles, is a permanent floating aircraft carrier, where despite government denials, terrorist suspects may be being "rendered" at a place called Camp Justice, a camp where no journalist has been permitted entrance. There could be no objections if terrorist suspects were brought to Diego Garcia and immediately handed over to the judge and magistrate who, along with the "BritRep" and 50 or so Marines, have responsibility for what is known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, and of which Diego Garcia is part. There they could be charged under British law on what remains British territory.

      But The Washington Post, Time magazine and all of us who have been campaigning over Diego Garcia for as long as we can remember doubt that is what is happening and simply do not believe what we have been told by Baroness Amos. And if it is the case that prisoners are being held on Diego Garcia in contravention of British law, it might go some way to explaining the lacklustre attempts by Tony Blair to persuade George Bush to budge on British-born prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

      Campaigners Menzies Campbell, Helena Kennedy, Tam Dalyell, Ken Coates - all of them could demand open and unrestricted access to Camp Justice on Diego Garcia. It is now the only way of establishing the truth.
      13 December 2003 11:16


      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 11:40:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.363 ()

      A photocopy of the passport of Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a former Iraqi official said to have met Mohamed Atta in Prague.
      December 13, 2003
      INQUIRY
      Iraqi Agent Denies He Met 9/11 Hijacker in Prague Before Attacks on the U.S.
      By JAMES RISEN

      WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — A former Iraqi intelligence officer who was said to have met with the suspected leader of the Sept. 11 attacks has told American interrogators the meeting never happened, according to United States officials familiar with classified intelligence reports on the matter.

      Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, the former intelligence officer, was taken into custody by the United States in July. Under questioning he has said that he did not meet with Mohamed Atta in Prague, according to the officials, who have reviewed classified debriefing reports based on the interrogations.

      American officials caution that Mr. Ani may have been lying to American interrogators, but the only other person reported to have attended the meeting was Mr. Atta, who died in the crash of his hijacked plane into the World Trade Center.

      Reports that an Iraqi spy had met with Mr. Atta in Prague first circulated soon after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, but they have been in dispute ever since.

      Czech government officials initially confirmed the reports, even as the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation said they could not corroborate them. Conservatives both inside and out of the Bush administration, arguing for war with Iraq, pointed to the reports as evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization that planned the Sept. 11 attacks.

      During the period between the Sept. 11 attacks and the war, the reports of the Prague meeting came under intense scrutiny from the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the Pentagon and the White House.

      Possible contacts between Mr. Atta and Mr. Ani seemed to offer the clearest potential connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda at a time when the Bush administration was arguing that invading Iraq was part of its campaign against terrorism.

      But the C.I.A. and F.B.I. eventually concluded that the meeting probably did not take place, and that there was no hard evidence that Mr. Hussein`s government was involved in the Sept. 11 plot.

      That put the intelligence agencies at odds with hard-liners at the Pentagon and the White House, who came to believe that C.I.A. analysts had ignored evidence that proved links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Eventually, the Prague meeting became a central element in a battle between the C.I.A. and the administration`s hawks over prewar intelligence.

      Since American forces toppled the Hussein government and the United States gained access to captured Iraqi officials and Iraqi files, the C.I.A. has not yet uncovered evidence that has altered its prewar assessment concerning the connections between Mr. Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, officials said.

      American intelligence officials say they believe there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990`s, but there is no proof that they ever conducted joint operations.

      Senior operatives of Al Qaeda who have been captured by the United States since Sept. 11 have also denied any alliance between the organization and Mr. Hussein.

      Abu Zubaydah, one of the highest-ranking Qaeda leaders in American custody, told the C.I.A. that Mr. bin Laden rejected the idea of working with Mr. Hussein, a secular leader whom Mr. bin Laden considered corrupt and irredeemable, according to a September 2002 classified intelligence report obtained by The New York Times.

      Mr. Zubaydah said that some Qaeda operatives wanted the organization to try to take advantage of Mr. Hussein`s hatred for the United States in order to obtain military material or other support from Iraq. But Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were strongly opposed to working with Iraq, according to the report of Mr. Zubaydah`s debriefing, which was obtained from Bush administration officials.

      Al Qaeda`s leadership "viewed the Iraqis, particularly the military and security services, as corrupt, irreligious and hypocritical in that they succumb to Western vices while concurrently remaining at war with the United States," the report says, summarizing Mr. Zubaydah`s statements. "The Iraqis were not viewed as true jihadists, and there was doubt amongst the senior Al Qaeda leadership on the depth of Saddam`s commitment to destroy Israel and further the cause of cleansing the Holy Land of infidel influences or presence."

      The debriefing report contains significant caveats, warning that Mr. Zubaydah, who was captured in March 2002, might be seeking to mislead the United States.

      Separately, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Al Qaeda`s chief of operations until his capture on March 1, 2003, in Pakistan, has also told interrogators that Al Qaeda never agreed to work with Mr. Hussein, officials said.

      But even as the C.I.A. has played down the connection, the report of a Prague meeting has continued to resonate among administration conservatives. As recently as September, two months after Mr. Ani was captured, Vice President Dick Cheney referred to the Prague meeting during an appearance on the NBC News program "Meet the Press."

      Asked about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Mr. Cheney replied: "With respect to 9/11, of course, we`ve had the story that`s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we`ve never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don`t know."

      The story first emerged in October 2001, when the Czech interior minister said publicly that there was evidence that Mr. Atta had met with Mr. Ani in April 2001. At the time, Mr. Ani was serving as an Iraqi intelligence officer under diplomatic cover at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague.

      Later, many Czech government officials became much more skeptical that the meeting ever took place, particularly after it became clear that the initial intelligence report from the Czech domestic intelligence agency concerning the meeting had come from a single informant in the local Arab community.

      The information was treated skeptically by Czech intelligence experts because it had been provided only after the Sept. 11 attacks, after Mr. Atta`s picture had been broadcast on television and published in newspapers around the world, and after the Czech press reported that records showed that Mr. Atta had once traveled to Prague.

      Czech officials have said that border police records showed that Mr. Atta, who was then living in Hamburg, Germany, did come to Prague in June 2000, after obtaining a visa in late May. Shortly after arriving in Prague on that occasion, Mr. Atta flew to Newark.

      American records now indicate that Mr. Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., in early April 2001, when he was supposedly in Prague to meet Mr. Ani.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 11:42:40
      Beitrag Nr. 10.364 ()
      December 13, 2003
      Iranian Rebels Urge Pentagon Not to Let Iraq Expel Them
      By DOUGLAS JEHL

      WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — Representatives of an Iranian opposition group are appealing to the Pentagon to overrule an order this week by the Iraqi Governing Council that would expel its members from Iraq by the end of the year, possibly to Iran.

      The group, the People`s Mujahedeen, or Mujahedeen Khalq, maintained armed camps in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It is listed by the United States as a terrorist organization, but it has strong supporters in the Pentagon, who see it as an important pressure point on the Iranian government.

      The request was sent on Thursday to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and shown to The New York Times on Friday by someone sympathetic to the group. It is being cast by some in the organization as a last-ditch effort to avoid an expulsion that could put its members into the hands of the Tehran government.

      Iran has quietly been seeking to persuade the Bush administration to agree to hand over the group, administration officials said. Tehran has relayed word through intermediaries that it may move in turn to expel members of Al Qaeda that it says it has in custody. But the Bush administration has rejected the idea of such an exchange.

      The group`s status in Iraq since the American invasion has remained murky, with several thousand of its members confined to a sprawling camp outside Baghdad under American military supervision as part of a cease-fire agreement reached in April.

      None of the group`s members have been detained by the United States, and they have been permitted to keep some small weapons and to continue broadcasts into Iran.

      Bush administration officials have defended that treatment as appropriate to the group`s status as a terrorist organization. But the State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, has refused to say whether the administration supports the order by the Iraqi Governing Council, whose authority to act unilaterally remains uncertain. Mr. Boucher has said only that American officials will be "discussing the matter" with their Iraqi counterparts.

      In appealing to the Pentagon, the Mujahedeen are clearly reaching out to factions within the administration that have shown the most sympathy for the group, which has carried out many acts of sabotage and assassination inside Iran and which the Iranian government regards as its most powerful external foe.

      In a letter sent Thursday to Mr. Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and others, a lawyer for the group argued that the United States had an obligation under the Geneva Convention as the occupying power in Iraq to prevent the organization`s members from being expelled.

      Any expulsion, particularly to Iran, "would constitute a violation of the laws of war and an egregious breach of international human rights law," said the letter from Marc Hezelin, a Swiss lawyer representing the group.

      Larry Di Rita, a spokesman for Mr. Rumsfeld, declined to comment on Friday, saying he did not know whether the defense secretary had received Mr. Hezelin`s letter.

      Iran has hailed the decision to expel the group by the end of the year. The order did not specify a destination, but the Iranian statement suggested that Tehran believed that it would be given custody of the fighters.

      The People`s Mujahedeen was listed as a terrorist organization by the United States during the Clinton administration, which blamed it for the killing of Americans in Iran in the 1970`s.

      Last summer, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell raised the pressure by outlawing several of the group`s affiliates in the United States, while France moved even more harshly in June by arresting more than 150 members in raids outside Paris.

      American warplanes bombed the Mujahedeen`s camps in Iraq during the war. But the group, which operated with the support of the Hussein government, did not take part in attacks against United States forces.

      In the months since, the Pentagon and the State Department have squabbled about how the organization should be treated, with the Pentagon winning an initial battle that led to a negotiated agreement rather than an unconditional surrender.

      The State Department has succeeded in blocking any reconsideration of the group`s status as a terrorist organization, an option being pressed by some at the Pentagon to add to pressure on Iran.

      But senior officials say the administation has been united in rejecting a proposal floated during the summer by Iran for an exchange of Mujahedeen members for Qaeda fighters whom Iran said it was willing to surrender to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab countries.

      At a State Department briefing this week, Mr. Boucher said that all countries had an obligation to act against terrorism, and that the obligation was "not dependent on some two-way deal."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 11:51:47
      Beitrag Nr. 10.365 ()
      December 13, 2003
      The Story Gets Worse

      Isn`t this about where we did not want to be at this point? While the Bush administration says things are going well in Iraq, the news from the American-led occupation is looking like a catalog of easily predictable, and widely predicted, pitfalls.

      Frustrated by suicide bombings and guerrilla violence, American military officers resort to the kind of harsh tactics that have caused endless ill will in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unable to develop reliable intelligence of its own, the administration has authorized the creation of an internal Iraqi spy agency, which will recruit former Iraqi military and intelligence officials to find those responsible for the attacks. Creating an agency like this at a time when the administration cannot tell friend from foe, and before there is any kind of Iraqi government to control its actions, seems like a road map to more serious trouble.

      Meanwhile, the reconstruction effort is tangled up in charges of overbilling by Vice President Dick Cheney`s former company, Halliburton. European allies, who had been making friendlier noises, are angry again, this time about President Bush`s misguided decision to turn the rebuilding program into a way to punish nations that did not agree with the war by excluding them from reconstruction contracts.

      As if all this was not depressing enough, Eric Lichtblau and Timothy O`Brien reported yesterday in The Times that federal efforts to uncover terrorists` financing networks and smash them had been crippled by bureaucratic wrangling in Washington. It would be unfair to blame Mr. Bush for not having won the war against terrorism in two years, but the creation of the Homeland Security Department, the biggest government reorganization in a half-century, was supposed to have dealt with Washington gridlock on national security.

      The way to deal with all that is going wrong in Iraq remains as clear as it was on the day that Mr. Bush declared an end to major combat operations. No amount of razor wire around villages, secret spy agencies, tearing down of Saddam Hussein statues and money for American contractors can fix the problems. Instead of driving away France, Germany, Russia and Canada with financial sanctions, the president should be creating the room for compromise that will lead to those countries` sending money and troops to Iraq. That would help to create a secure enough environment for the United Nations to come in and take over the nation-building responsibilities, giving the occupation an international face.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 12:11:39
      Beitrag Nr. 10.366 ()














      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 12:20:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.367 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 12:21:51
      Beitrag Nr. 10.368 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 12:28:07
      Beitrag Nr. 10.369 ()

      Concerns including low pay and ethnic tension have left the Iraqi army`s 1st Battalion shorthanded before its first assignment.
      washingtonpost.com
      Recruits Abandon Iraqi Army
      Troubled Training Hurts Key Component of Bush Security Plan

      By Ariana Eunjung Cha
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Saturday, December 13, 2003; Page A01


      KIRKUSH, Iraq, Dec. 12 -- More than half the men in the first unit to be trained for the new Iraqi army have abandoned their jobs because of low pay, inadequate training, faulty equipment, ethnic tensions and other concerns, leaving the nascent 1st Battalion dramatically understaffed just days before it is scheduled to leave training camp for its first assignment, Iraqi, U.S. and other coalition officials say.

      About 480 of the 900 recruits who began training in August have left the U.S.-backed force, according to Australian Maj. Doug Cumming, chief instructor at the training academy in Kirkush, about 60 miles northeast of Baghdad. They will not be punished for leaving, nor are they even being pursued, officials say. Among those who remain, some still have not mastered such basics as how to march in formation and how to properly respond to radio calls.

      On Monday, the 1st Battalion is scheduled to begin assisting the U.S. Army`s 4th Infantry Division in running traffic checkpoints and securing defense perimeters around bases in the eastern part of the country. Plans also call for the battalion to move to the northern city of Mosul in mid-February to serve as an independent unit under the command of the 101st Airborne Division.

      Creation of the new Iraqi army is a key component of the Bush administration`s plan to restore security and to return sovereignty to Iraqis. Establishing a capable military force would also yield domestic benefits for the administration by making it possible to send U.S. and other foreign soldiers home. Congress has allocated $2 billion in the next year to support the new Iraqi army.

      Administrators, instructors and recruits interviewed here at the training camp all agreed that the 1st Battalion`s training had been troubled.

      "It was a new experience for everyone," said U.S. Army Command Sgt. Maj. Johnny Matlock, who is part of the multinational team overseeing the new army`s training. "We had to learn by mistakes."

      The first mistake, according to those in charge of the training program, was that the Iraqi soldiers` salaries were too low. Privates earn $70 a month -- about half the amount paid to the people who fill sandbags around the Baghdad headquarters of the U.S.-led occupation authority, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton said. For several months, Eaton has been asking for extra money for the soldiers.

      The Coalition Provisional Authority says it is reviewing the pay scale for the Iraqi army as well as for other Iraqi security forces. But one official said the authority feels the soldiers` "remuneration package is at least very fair."

      Civilians Training Soldiers


      Another problem, Eaton said, was that a civilian company was hired to conduct the training rather the military. The $48 million contract was awarded to Vinnell Corp. in the spring, when U.S. forces in Iraq were stretched thin and cutting loose several hundred soldiers to oversee the training would have been difficult.

      Training was conducted by employees of Vinnell or one of its subcontractors: Military Professional Resources Inc., Science Applications International Corp., Eagle Group International Inc., Omega Training Group and Worldwide Language Resources Inc. Founded in the 1930s, Vinnell was well known in defense circles for its training of the Saudi Arabian National Guard, but it only recently was thrust into the public spotlight when its complex in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, was bombed by terrorists this year.

      Eaton said that while he believes Vinnell brought world-class technical expertise to the task, instructors weren`t able to impose the regimented discipline of military instructors. The new Iraqi army needed drill sergeants, he said, but Vinnell personnel were more akin to college professors.

      "Soldiers need to train soldiers. You can`t ask a civilian to do a soldier`s job," Eaton said.

      Representatives from Vinnell declined to comment and referred all questions to the military.

      Initial plans for creation of the Iraqi army called for civilian contractors to train all 27 battalions. Now, after Vinnell completes its obligation to train nine battalions, military personnel will take over. The U.S. government has decided to award a second contract, for training officers, to the Jordanian military. Remaining battalions will be trained by the Iraqi military, and the total number of troops to be trained before occupation authorities surrender sovereignty has been cut in half, to 20,000, Eaton said.

      Shortly after the war ended this spring, Iraq`s U.S. civilian administrator, L. Paul Bremer, disbanded the Iraqi army, leaving an estimated 400,000 soldiers without jobs and provoking violent protests in the streets of every major city in the country.

      Bremer then ordered creation of a new army, one without ties to ousted president Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party. Recruiting offices opened around the country, and ex-soldiers, farmers, cigarette vendors, construction workers and others signed up.

      One recruit was Haitham Ahmed Salman, 33, from Baqubah, north of Baghdad. When he showed up for training 41/2 months ago, he said, he was prepared for the brutality of boot camp. Instead, he was surprised to find that the civilian instructors were polite, respectful and even friendly.

      The majority of the instructors, who walk around the training base with slate-gray uniforms that look like a cross between hospital scrubs and prison garb, have some military experience, but many had been retired for years. They approached the recruits with an egalitarian philosophy, several trainees said, making do without the formalities of "sir" and "ma`am" and saluting. They encouraged trainees to take time off and relax and watch Sylvester Stallone and Jackie Chan movies.

      Salman, who is now a major in command of the 1st Battalion`s 4th Company, said this relaxed attitude confused recruits, who often were not punished for arriving late for classes, neglecting assignments or getting into fistfights.

      "They taught that military orders work on your mood. You can refuse -- this is freedom and democracy," he said. "But in military life, freedom and democracy should not apply."

      When the 1st Battalion graduated on Oct. 4, the unit`s Iraqi commander, Lt. Col. Ali Naim Jabbar, and his top deputies concluded that they would need to redo much of the training. For the past few weeks, they have been running the recruits through exercises they remembered from their days in the old Iraqi army.

      Meanwhile, Vinnell`s trainers have been concentrating on overhauling their program for the 2nd and 3rd battalions. Significant curriculum changes include a reduction in the theory and other classroom studies by 30 to 40 percent and adding hands-on field exercises focused on such skills as how to conduct a night watch and how to scan an area for danger -- things that had been taught only by textbook examples.

      Military personnel are now a more visible part of the training. Iraqi soldiers from the 1st Battalion impose discipline on and serve as mentors to recruits in the 2nd and 3rd battalions, and occupation soldiers make an effort to engage in back-and-forth discussions.

      Disunity in Diversity


      Another source of tension among 1st Battalion recruits was the forced integration of ethnic Arabs and Kurds, traditional enemies. American planners imagined the new army as a showcase for the country`s diversity, and the 1st Battalion was set up to be 60 percent Arab Shiite Muslim, 20 percent Arab Sunni, 10 percent Kurdish Sunni and 10 percent other. About 100 Kurds quit in the first few weeks of training after their tribal leaders objected to the battalion`s ethnic mixture.

      In addition, because predominantly Kurdish northern Iraq was autonomous from the rest of the country for the past dozen years, many young Kurds don`t speak Arabic. During military training, instruction had to be translated from English to Arabic and then to Kurdish.

      "I`m not that comfortable in the new army," said Nawar Mahmood, 23, who said he was a member of the Kurdish pesh merga militia and had been reassigned to the new Iraqi army. "I spent 13 years in the pesh merga fighting the Baathists, and now there are many Baathists in the new army."

      Among other complaints voiced by the recruits: The soles of the first set of boots they received fell off. Their uniforms -- an odd mix of pink, brown and green that is supposed to resemble camouflage -- are falling apart. Their weapons jam when they try to fire them -- although U.S. troops who have tested them say they work fine.

      "Soldiers want to be elegant when they go out, but you see our funny clothes," Salman said. "The men ask me, `Are we really going out in these clothes?` Every time you wash them they get smaller, so I have gone a month without washing them."

      Eaton said he, too, is frustrated about the quality of the equipment. One reason, he said, is that the coalition authority is buying the gear with seized Iraqi assets, which can only be spent through contracts with Iraqi companies.

      Cumming, the chief instructor, said he worries that some of his recruits can`t pay their rent with their salaries and that, because they agonize over the welfare of their families, they want life insurance. Eaton said his team is working on a plan to introduce health coverage and other benefits for troops and to create housing for their families on bases, but he acknowledges it is unlikely this will happen soon.

      Cumming said fair compensation for Iraqi soldiers would be equal to what Iraqi police receive -- $120 a month -- plus something extra, because soldiers are asked to live away from home.

      "Get a bureaucrat and take him away from home and stick him in this camp and make him run around a bit, and then ask him what`s fair," Cumming said.

      For about a week, members of the Army`s 4th Infantry Division have been running the 1st Battalion`s remaining troops through some simulated missions. Capt. William Hansen of Fairfax and Staff Sgt. Donald Coleman from Arlington are advising Salman`s 4th Company.

      On Friday, the 4th Company`s goal was to set up a mock ambush point, stop a convoy and capture or kill the enemy. The trainees hoisted their guns, swarmed the road, and within a few minutes they had successfully neutralized their target. Or so they thought.

      Hansen called the privates over to assess their performance. He was less than thrilled. The men should have camouflaged their helmets with leaves and branches, he said, before they advanced to the side of the road. They should have been moving discreetly in twos, not in long lines. And they should have gotten around the vehicle faster, to take advantage of the element of surprise during the critical first 15 seconds.

      Not everyone was listening. Some soldiers fidgeted and began talking among themselves.

      "Hey!" Hansen yelled, pointing at his chest. "Everyone with less rank than me pays attention to me, okay?"

      Salman closed his eyes and sighed.

      Staff writers Thomas E. Ricks and Peter Slevin in Washington, special correspondent Omar Fekeiki in Kirkush and correspondent Alan Sipress in Baghdad contributed to this report.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 12:43:47
      Beitrag Nr. 10.370 ()
      Erfolg für den Terminator und das gegen einige Stimmen der Reps. Ist s ein trojanisches Pferd?

      washingtonpost.com
      Californians To Vote on Debt Plan
      Legislature Approves Schwarzenegger Proposal

      By Rene Sanchez
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Saturday, December 13, 2003; Page A01


      LOS ANGELES, Dec. 12 -- California`s legislature agreed Friday to allow Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to seek voter approval for $15 billion in borrowing and a ballot measure that would limit spending, two steps he said are urgently needed to end the financial crisis engulfing the nation`s most populous state.

      In a decisive show of support for the new governor, and with rare bipartisan spirit, the financial recovery plan passed with ease in both houses of the legislature, which is controlled by Democrats.

      "I am a happy governor, because this is a new day for California," Schwarzenegger said Friday night as he signed the package.

      Schwarzenegger and Democratic leaders reluctantly made an assortment of compromises during marathon talks this week to craft the plan. Then he persuaded skeptical conservative Republican lawmakers to back it.

      They had little time to spare. California is saddled with a deficit exceeding $14 billion, its economy lost 14,000 more jobs last month, and Wall Street dealt the state another significant blow this week by lowering its already beleaguered bond rating to rock-bottom levels.

      Schwarzenegger`s first attempt to get the plan approved was soundly rejected by both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans a week ago -- even though he had warned that "failure is not an option."

      Afterward, he threatened to bypass the legislature and launch a petition drive to get his proposals on the ballot next year. But he decided to continue negotiating and wound up brokering a deal that he and many lawmakers said was less than what they wanted, but fair.

      The movie star-turned-governor, who took office last month, emerged from the budget debate praising the legislature, saying it had set aside partisanship and "taken the first step to put California back on sound financial footing."

      Democratic leaders credited Schwarzenegger for taking an aggressive but amicable approach to the budget talks and for showing political pragmatism.

      "I can see how the governor got where he was and where he is, because he didn`t want to give up on trying to reach a solution," said state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D). He described the budget deal as "about as good a bipartisan effort as I`ve seen since I`ve been around here all these years."

      Now, Schwarzenegger has to sell it to voters -- and he could still face formidable obstacles to getting it passed.

      Schwarzenegger`s plan is scheduled to appear on the March ballot. It would rely on borrowing to wipe out the nearly $11 billion deficit he inherited upon taking office and the nearly $4 billion he just added to it by repealing the tripling of car taxes that his predecessor, Democrat Gray Davis, imposed this year. The plan would put new spending restrictions on the legislature, including a future ban on the kind of borrowing that Schwarzenegger now wants to do. It would also force lawmakers to create a reserve fund to deal with any future budget shortfalls.

      But some conservative political groups are suggesting that they might challenge the proposals, and state Treasurer Phil Angelides, a Democrat who may run for governor in 2006, is already campaigning against it. In speeches and television ads, he is denouncing the massive long-term borrowing that Schwarzenegger wants as "morally repugnant" because interest on it could greatly burden Californians in the future, when the debt has to be repaid.

      When he campaigned for governor this fall, Schwarzenegger did not mention borrowing as an option to deal with California`s immediate fiscal crisis. But since taking office, he and his aides have said that it appears to be the only alternative either to tax increases or huge cuts in state programs.

      Even with Friday`s agreement, Schwarzenegger`s debate with the legislature over California`s severe financial problems is far from over. He is scheduled to submit his first budget early next month, and it is likely to include spending cuts that Democrats loathe. Schwarzenegger already has said that he might have to cut about $2 billion from state programs mostly for the disabled and the poor, which has sparked large protests. And this week he appeared to retreat from a campaign promise to spare education programs from any budget cuts.

      GOP lawmakers had wanted Schwarzenegger to get Democrats to accept much stricter limits on state spending in this week`s budget negotiations, but most said Friday that they could live with the compromises he made.

      Senate Republican leader Jim Brulte called the agreement "step one in getting our fiscal house in order."

      Democrats also expressed hints of optimism on the budget crisis -- and Schwarzenegger.

      "It`s a positive step for him," said state Sen. Debra Bowen (D). "It`s certainly much better for him to go into a difficult budget year being able to pull together a bipartisan solution to a real difficult situation."

      Special correspondent Kimberly Edds contributed to this report.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 12:46:02
      Beitrag Nr. 10.371 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Bush Economic Aide Says Government Lacks Vision


      By Jonathan Weisman
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Saturday, December 13, 2003; Page A01


      A senior member of President Bush`s economic team told manufacturers this summer that it is difficult for the balkanized federal government to develop vision on any policy issue and that, in particular, the Commerce Department has scant political or financial authority to influence government policy on behalf of the nation`s ailing manufacturers.

      The comments by Deputy Commerce Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, revealed in a transcript of a day-long manufacturing symposium in June, offer a rare dose of candor about the way Washington works and the limits of the government`s power. They also surfaced just as the administration is trying to boost the visibility of its manufacturing policies, and as Bodman awaits Senate confirmation to assume the No. 2 post at the Treasury Department.

      Responding to a comment on the government`s vision for manufacturing, Bodman told the gathering, "I will tell you, it is very hard for this government to have a vision on anything. We are totally stove-piped, and we live within these compartments. This is not by way of a complaint. This is not by way of an excuse. It is by way of a fact.

      "Congress likes it this way, and making organizational changes in the federal government is, as many of you know, a massive undertaking, a several-year job. It is not a several-month job. It is a several-year job, and so you don`t do it very often, because it`s certainly not worth it," he said.

      As for the Commerce Department, which Bush has put in charge of manufacturing policy, Bodman suggested that it hardly had the authority to effect change in Washington.

      "The Commerce Department can and will be active. I will tell you, . . . the inherent authority of this department within the government is modest," he said. "The measure of one`s manhood or womanhood is one`s budget size, and we have a lot of people here, but we have a $5 billion budget. That sounds like a lot. It`s peanuts in this town."

      "And, therefore, one deals with issues of a philosophical nature . . . by force of personality, by force of being willing to differ from the crowd and being quite argumentative, none of which falls within the rubric of how Washington runs," he continued. "Everybody in this town tries to, and works very hard at being nice to everybody else at all times, almost at all costs, and the reason for it is nobody knows who they will end up working for the next month. That`s just a fact. It`s not a complaint. It`s not an excuse. It`s a fact."

      Bodman`s remarks, first reported Dec. 5 in Manufacturing & Technology News, were made at an event that was closed to the media. They surfaced after Richard McCormack, the editor of the trade publication, submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

      The comments are becoming public after the manufacturing sector has shed jobs for 40 straight months, with employment down nearly 2.8 million from its July 2000 peak.

      Administration officials have promised a renewed effort to address the manufacturers` problems. But Bodman`s assessment of the Commerce Department`s power appears to call into question a central plank of Bush`s manufacturing initiative: the appointment of a "manufacturing czar" within the Commerce Department. Bush pledged in September to create the post of assistant secretary of commerce for manufacturing, a promise that has yet to be fulfilled, but even Bush supporters have questioned that move`s potential impact.

      "Commerce can`t do it on its own," said Frank Vargo, vice president of international affairs and economic policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, which generally has supported the Bush administration. "It has to be an interagency effort."

      Bodman`s sentiment also feeds into a growing discontent with White House policymaking, even among conservatives. Bruce Bartlett, an economist with the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis, said the administration policy apparatus has become too centralized in the White House, with too little interagency cooperation or even input from the Cabinet departments -- the essence of "stove-piping."

      "Those comments were amazing," Bartlett said. "Remember the old line, `A gaffe is created when somebody speaks the truth?` I think [Bodman`s] right."

      Bodman did not respond to a call seeking comment on his remarks. But White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said Bodman was referring broadly to the nature of government, not specifically to the operations of the Bush administration.

      "There`s no question the government has been historically associated with bureaucracy," she said. "The president recognizes that, and he`s undertaken an aggressive management agenda, to rethink government so it`s not bureaucracy focused."

      Commerce Department spokesman Ron Bonjean cautioned that Bodman made his remarks before Commerce officials embarked on a 20-city tour to elicit the views of manufacturers on how to address their problems. The agency is expected to issue a detailed manufacturing initiative in January.

      Bodman`s "view is that the private sector knows best how to grow their companies and create high-quality U.S. jobs. The role of government is to create the right environment to help them succeed," Bonjean said.

      When Bodman spoke at the symposium in June, private-sector participants in the Commerce forum on manufacturing did not appear optimistic about government help, according to the transcript. NAM`s Vargo told the group, "It`s not clear to me that the Commerce Department and its role in the government and the way the government perceives manufacturing and the U.S. role in the world economy is adequately incorporated into the structure of the government that we can make the kind of changes necessary."

      Jim Zawacki, chief executive of G.R. Spring & Stamping Inc. in Michigan, challenged another Commerce Department official`s positive spin of administration intentions, the transcript shows.

      In an interview yesterday, Zawacki, a self-described strong Bush supporter, recalled that Bodman looked "very discouraged" at the meeting and left participants feeling the same.

      "It`s not a Bush thing," Zawacki said. "It`s not a Clinton thing. There is no vision in this government, and what vision there is lasts two years. It`s called the next election."



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 12:55:22
      Beitrag Nr. 10.372 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 12:56:44
      Beitrag Nr. 10.373 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 13:13:24
      Beitrag Nr. 10.374 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 13:17:58
      Beitrag Nr. 10.375 ()

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1009277.htm]


      Last Update: Saturday, December 13, 2003. 12:28pm (AEDT)

      US Senators demand Guantanamo resolution
      By North America correspondent Jill Colgan

      Three US Senators have written to Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld demanding that he formally charge the detainees as war criminals or return them to their own countries to face justice.

      The letter follows a visit by the trio to the maximum security prison this week.

      The letter was sent by Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Democrat Senator Maria Cantwell.

      Both Senators McCain and Graham have had lengthy military careers.

      Senator McCain is a war hero who was imprisoned by the Vietnamese for five years, much of it in solitary confinement.

      The letter congratulates the military for the smooth running of the prison at Guantanamo but expresses serious concerns at the ongoing detention of the prisoners without charges.

      The Senators have demanded to know when Mr Rumsfeld will decide the fate of all the detainees and when military trials will start.

      Noting some of the men have been held for two years, the letter says it is time to make a decision on how the US will move forward.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 13:27:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10.376 ()
      GI pleads guilty to injuring self to get out of Iraq


      By Steve Liewer, Stars and Stripes
      European edition, Friday, December 12, 2003



      WÜRZBURG, Germany — Plagued with anxiety, driven by addiction to painkillers and yearning to see his newborn son, Spc. Marcus Lee couldn’t stand to spend another day in Iraq.

      So on July 1, 3½ months into his tour at Sustainer Air Base in Balad, Lee grabbed his M-16 rifle from the weapons rack of the 3rd Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment, and walked outside behind the tent. He sat down on a water jug, chambered a round, aimed the rifle at his foot, and fired.

      “I knew I wanted to get out of Iraq and be with my son,” he said. “I mentally quit. I gave up being a soldier because I wanted to be a father.”

      The gunshot did earn Lee a trip back to his home base in Giebelstadt, Germany, for medical treatment and a court-martial. But the reunion with his wife, Susanne, 19, and his son, Anthony, came with a price.

      Lee pleaded guilty Wednesday to charges of injuring himself to avoid duty, wrongful use of the prescription drug Percocet, and trying to bribe a medic to give him the drug. Lt. Col. Robin Hall, the military judge, sentenced him to two years in prison, reduction to the lowest enlisted rank and a bad-conduct discharge.

      Lee had been married less than three months when he left his pregnant wife and shipped out for Iraq with his unit March 17. He had joined the Army four years earlier as a helicopter mechanic, and his commanders testified he had been a superior soldier.

      He was excited at first about going to Iraq, according to testimony from his mother, but his motivation waned by summer. He went home for two weeks in June and was awed by the birth of his son on June 10. He said he wanted to spend time with his son — unlike his own father, who left the family before Lee was born.

      Lee said after joining the Army he also had become addicted to Percocet, a painkiller, which had been prescribed for a series of ear and throat maladies.

      Lee said he has undergone counseling and been drug-free since July, although prosecutors said he had tried to obtain Percocet as recently as last month.“Specialist Lee is a good man,” said his attorney, Capt. Kurt Gilabert. “He let his fellow soldiers down. He wants the opportunity to be there with them again.”

      But Capt. Treb Courie, the military prosecutor, said Lee had disgraced himself beyond redemption by leaving his unit during war. He recommended a 25-month sentence. The judge granted most of it.

      “You need to send a message about what is right and what is wrong,” Courie said. “What the accused did is a slap in the face to every soldier who is serving in Iraq.”
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 13:31:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.377 ()
      Bonfire of faith as mosques go to war
      The Sydney Morning Herald
      December 13, 2003

      The gaping hole in a brick wall marks the spot where three of the faithful were killed at the Sunni mosque. Two blocks away, Shiite worshippers are in tears after the invasion of their mosque by a wild funeral procession for the Sunni dead, during which shots were fired and the Koran, along with pictures of sainted Shiite scholars, was desecrated.

      This week`s eruption of Sunni-Shiite tension in Al Hiriya Al Dabash, a middle-class suburb of Baghdad, is the feared descent to sectarian urban warfare that observers always feared would complicate US attempts to impose a democracy in Iraq.

      During the US occupation, some mosques have been attacked. But this is the first incident in which revenge has been so clear-cut. And so swift.

      At the cement-rendered Ahbab Al-Mustafa mosque, the imam, Ahmed Al-Dabash, with the trademark straggly beard associated with pro-Sunni extremism, blamed Tuesday`s bombing on Shiite militias and denied that a day later his congregation had attacked the Shiites` Al Tuheed mosque.

      The Shiites are poor by comparison and their makeshift mosque is a dishevelled former Baath party office block.

      Amjad Jazim Mohammed, a member of the Shiite congregation, said that he and fellow worshippers went to help the dead and injured Sunnis, but that the explosion was not a Shiite attack - rather an accidental detonation as the Sunnis prepared car-bombs for use against local Shiites.

      The story is as murky as that, but word that the two mosques are at war spread like wildfire. Iraqi security forces, backed by US tanks, now guard the Shiites, and attempts by the Sunnis to smuggle arms into their mosque were foiled by a vehicle search.

      Dr Al-Dabash said he believed an RPG-7 missile had been fired into the Sunni mosque compound 45 minutes after dawn prayers, causing an explosion that fried a big generator and engulfed two cars. Flying debris killed three people praying in the mosque.

      He conceded that young men attending the next day`s funeral for the three had fired shots, butinsisted that this was nothing more than the gunfire that customarily marked funerals and weddings in Iraq.

      "In any event, where the Shiites pray is not a mosque - it belongs to the Baath party," he said. "I wouldn`t allow the use of guns in a Shiite mosque. The thought makes me angry. We are not worried by the bombing. Since it happened, greater numbers of Sunnis have been coming to prayer. We are not afraid to die."

      But at the Shiite mosque windows are broken and fresh bullet-holes riddle a wooden sign at the front. Inside, the sparse furnishings and fittings have been smashed.

      But the greatest offence was caused by damage to a portrait of Imam Ali, the revered son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, whose martyrdom is the fundamental element of the Shiite faith and character. A bonfire was fuelled with posters of other Shiite saints and copies of the Koran.

      Amjad Jazim Mohammed, who said he saw the invasion, told the Herald: "The Sunnis blamed us for the attack on their mosque because they knew that the Americans would investigate the explosion and they did not want their bomb-making to be discovered.

      "They broke in the doors of our mosque and hundreds of them rushed in. They pushed me aside, yelling, `All Shiites out`. They were dancing and chanting, `Shiites are the enemy of God` and `God loves a dead Shiite`. They ripped the pictures from the walls, threw them to the floor and ground the heel of their shoes into them."

      At the Al Tuheed mosque, congregation members accused Dr Al-Dabash of having served in Saddam Hussein`s secret police, and of having recently studied in Saudi Arabia, where, they said, he was imbued with the Saudi`s extremist Wahabi Islamic doctrine.


      This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/12/1071125654728.html
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 14:25:34
      Beitrag Nr. 10.378 ()
      Take No Prisoners
      #10172 diesmal mit Kommentar:
      Another proud moment in U.S. Military History.

      U.S. Marines execute an Iraqi to the cheers of fellow marines

      -:WARNING:-

      This video should only be viewed by a mature audience


      http://informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm


      Page Updated: 12/11/03 2:13 PM: PST.

      Transcript:

      CNN Presents: Fit To Kill

      Aired October 26, 2003 - 20:00 ET

      CROWLEY: Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun. The Marines kill him -- then cheer.

      RIDDLE: Like, man, you guys are dead now, you know. But it was a good feeling.

      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fire!

      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah!

      CROWLEY: When the battle is over and you are still standing, the adrenalin rush is huge.

      RIDDLE: I mean, afterwards you`re like, hell, yeah, that was awesome. Let`s do it again.

      CROWLEY: Inexplicable to some, but not to generations of veterans. Continued Here


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

      Comments from readers regarding this video.

      Tom- I believe the way you present the `shocking` video you have on your website is very irresponsible and inflammatory. The very fact that it is presented without amplifying remarks or background information, coupled with how you use `execute` to describe the situation, illustrates how naive you are to military operations.

      The current policy in Iraq is to SHOOT ON SIGHT ANYBODY emplacing IEDs....yes, those nasty little roadside bombs that have killed almost 200 of our service personnel. But of course, given the very OBVIOUS leftist slant of your website, it is apparent that you wouldn`t see fit to report all the facts, choosing instead to attempt to use such media
      to advance your faltering liberal agenda, rather than condemn a terrorist agenda. Where on your website do you report the assassinations by terrorists who only hope to get their country back up and running, or the indiscriminate bombings that kill innocent, non-combatant Iraqis?

      Forget the fact that we have build hundreds of schools, enabled democracy, re-energized the Iraqi economy, or that Saddam killed tens of thousands of people (to name a few). According to your website, a day doesn`t go by when we aren`t killing Afghani children or conspiring with the Israelis to take over the world.

      Too bad the economy is up, and the Dems best hopes lie w/ Howard Dean...Good luck with that! Bush in 2004!

      SEMPER FI!

      Capt. James Kimber
      United States Marine Corps
      Training & Education Command
      Reconnaissance & Special Skills Officer
      COMM: (703)784-3041 DSN 278
      FAX: (703)432-0608
      EMAIL: kimberjs@tecom.usmc.mil


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      I cannot believe you want us to believe that the video you show of the US
      Marines killing that man is anything but a propaganda issue? Why didn`t you
      include the part where this character was laying in ambush for the Marine
      patrol to wlak by? Why didn`t you show the part where he is rigging an
      improvised explosive device to go off the next convoy that drives by it?

      What you have shown here is prue drivell. I am outraged that you have the
      audactiy to put this on your site. I am further embarassed if someone
      actually believes that "their" Marines would do such a thing to a person who
      didn`t deserve it. Don`t give me "Well, thats for courts to decide."
      argument. This is a battle zone and you have ZERO idea of what these 18-22
      year oldss are having to deal with on a daily basis.

      I am appalled and dismayed at your lack of support for our troops, my
      brothers in arms, that are out there. You say "I support the troops, not
      the mission." But when you show vulgarity like that on your site, you have
      no support for them at all.

      Obviously, your kids are not in the military.

      CWO2 Bryan M Simon, USMC
      Combat Cargo Officer USS Juneau
      E-Mail: simonb@juneau.navy.mil
      Siprnet: simonb@juneau.navy.smil.mil



      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      My reply.

      Thank you for your email.

      Let us assume for a moment that everything you say is correct.

      This Iraqi man was wounded and a prisoner of war. These troops murdered him.

      There is no way on earth that you can defend the murder of a wounded soldier
      in this manner, especially if you are in the military and aware of the "rules and laws of war"

      Would you feel the same way and defend this murder if this were one of our
      sons who was shot like a dog? I think not.

      Tom


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Dear Sir;

      I saw both the video on the front page and read the letters from the Marines.

      Disgusting.

      I too, am recently returned from seven months in Iraq, with a Division Cavalry unit. I see nothing to defend in that video and am glad that you have archived it so that others can see it. As a scout with over twenty years in the Army, mostly in combat units, I would say that what is captured on the video appears to be murder and in violation of the Law
      of Land Warfare.

      This is not how warriors behave but how thugs operate. If the Iraqi man was indeed laying in ambush or setting an IED, then it is entirely appropriate to shoot him and to shoot him until he is no longer a threat. Once he ceased combat operations however, it became the soldiers` job to treat him and give him the same aid they would have one of our wounded soldiers receive.

      That`s how the Law of Land Warfare works.

      To use him as a target and appear so joyful about it demonstrates that murder occurred and not combat operations. That is not a reflection of how callous all the soldiers are or what is encouraged or allowed in units. That unit has a problem. Any commander that glosses over that incident is neglecting his duty.

      In the opening days of the war, our medics treated many Iraqi casualties, sometimes heroically. That`s what you do. Its the law. I have no love lost for Iraqis, especially after watching the ones so happy to get a handout dance so gleefully in soldier`s blood.

      Our troops killed plenty, engaging in combat actions. My instructions to soldiers on missions almost always included the words - "if at anytime you feel threatened, shoot, shoot first and shoot center mass." But at no time were any of our soldiers instructed, allowed or countenanced to murder an injured person, be he combatant or not. I took pride that my commander insisted we "keep our mean faces on. We are not here to make
      friends" but also insisted on the humane treatment, even recommending our PA for an award solely for working heroically on an Iraqi casualty.

      This man had attempted to engage our forces, was shot and shot bad and eventually died. No one was happy that a human died. We understood that if we are to expect to be treated a certain way upon injury or capture, then we must treat the enemy the same way. That`s what warriors do.

      1SG Perry D. Jefferies <pjefferies@hot.rr.com>
      Copperas Cove, TX

      www.jeffzed.org
      ...information wants to be free...


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

      Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
      (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
      To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
      (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
      (b) taking of hostages;
      (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
      (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
      (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
      An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 14:35:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.379 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-…
      COLUMN ONE


      In the New Iraq, a Neighborhood Tells the Story
      A Baghdad district -- home to Hussein supporters and U.S. troops, war widows and torture victims -- is a cross-section of the nation`s past and future.
      By John Daniszewski
      Times Staff Writer

      December 13, 2003

      BAGHDAD — A new day dawns over the sleepy neighborhood known as Muhallah 665. The dappled sunlight, pink in the dusty haze, casts long shadows over houses with grandiose touches — a high arch here, a Doric column there, a balustraded balcony.

      Before the war, this neighborhood of northwest Baghdad was a well-ordered enclave where favors and privileges went hand in hand with support — obsequious, often humiliating support — for Saddam Hussein.

      An elaborate system of rewards and punishments prevailed. Land was given to army officers and intelligence agents, who built large and modern houses. For the faithful among the 14,000 residents, there were bonuses, awarded on the numerous state and Baath Party holidays. For the politically suspect, there was prison, torture and impoverishment.

      On this new day, life in Muhallah 665 is changed utterly.

      Freed of the dictator they had been forced to love by a country they had been taught to hate, neighbors face the day suspended between hope and fear.

      Members of Hussein`s Fedayeen still live in secret here, plotting against the Americans. They make their presence felt with the anti-U.S. pamphlets they leave on neighborhood doorsteps, and the roadside bombs they are suspected of leaving along nearby highways. A few high-ranking Baath Party bureaucrats are around too, cloistered, waiting to see if the new authorities will ever come to arrest them.

      And a coterie of gray-haired former army colonels and generals, now out of work and bitter about the dissolution of the Iraqi armed forces, gathers each evening around wooden tables in a back corner of the market to play dominoes and talk about how the new rulers don`t know anything about anything.

      But others celebrate. Onetime enemies of the regime and former political prisoners are overjoyed that Hussein is gone and his sons, Uday and Qusai, have been killed.

      An ambitious young Shiite mullah has appropriated the old local Baath Party headquarters and refashioned it into a mosque, community center and clinic. Like other members of the country`s Shiite Muslim majority, for the first time in his life he feels empowered.

      The neighborhood`s newest residents are at its eastern edge, across a busy four-lane street along which peasant women are sometimes seen foraging for grass for their animals, piling it high on donkeys, and where a makeshift market has sprung up to sell bricks and sand and other building materials.

      There, behind an earthen barrier topped by barbed wire, U.S. soldiers occupy a group of half-finished brick houses once meant for privileged members of Hussein`s regime. They are about 600 members of the 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment of the Army`s 82nd Airborne Division, the Red Falcons out of Ft. Bragg, N.C., eager to go home but striving to stay focused on — in their terminology — "the mission."

      With the soldiers and the mullah, the embittered and the optimistic, Muhallah 665 is a cross-section of the old and new, the good and bad, the ups and downs of the new Iraq.

      It is in ordinary neighborhoods such as this that the war for Iraqi support is being waged by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. For the moment, at least, it is a struggle. Among both supporters and opponents of Hussein, there is overwhelming frustration.

      Most in Muhallah 665 — Neighborhood 665 — had expected things to be better under the Americans. But eight months after U.S. forces entered Baghdad, services providing electricity, telephones, gasoline and cooking fuel have yet to be restored to prewar levels.

      People thought they would at the very least be safe on their streets, and not beset by fears of robbery, kidnapping and civil disorder.

      They thought they would have an Iraqi government instead of a hodgepodge of U.S. civil and military rule, locally appointed councils, interim ministers and a Governing Council that exercises little independent authority.

      Like the rest of Iraq, the people of Muhallah 665 live in limbo. Some hold grudges or nurse wounds that fester. Others, despite the hardships and uncertainty, rouse themselves to face the future.

      This is a neighborhood like many in Baghdad, laid out in a simple grid of nameless, numbered streets, just wide enough for cars to park. The homes are hidden behind walls, but sometimes flowers, shrubs and date palms rise above the concrete, hinting at inviting gardens, and the stories inside.

      The Widow

      Walk along Street 22 to house No. 9 with its drab metal gate. You`ll find a little girl called Amad. She is 4 years old, has short brown hair and sad, dark eyes.

      Sometimes she stands by herself, talking to the sky. If you ask, she will say she is talking to her daddy, telling him to come home. He won`t. He died fighting in the war against the Americans — and for Hussein.

      The changes in Iraq can be charted by how far the old elite has fallen. Amad`s mother, Hawaa Saeed Kadhim, a demure, dark-haired woman of 33, felt the changes more violently than most.

      In a single day, she lost her husband, her money and her car. From a cosseted, privileged wife of someone in the inner circle of the Baathist regime, she was transformed into a pauper.

      Kadhim does not apologize for her life as the spouse of an aide to Uday Hussein. Uday was a violent monster, but her husband had no choice but to serve him, she says. Disloyalty was severely punished — as her husband`s colleagues used to say, "God forgives, but not Uday."

      Ahmad Hamid Ismail was only 19 when he went to work for Uday in 1986. He had enrolled in a religious college, and then transferred to a military academy, graduating as a promising young officer. He was assigned to be a companion to the president`s son, who was about his age.

      Ismail married Hawaa a year after that. She was only a girl herself at 17, from an educated family. The match seemed fortuitous. Ismail was handsome, intelligent and — although his salary was not lavish — he had the chance to make more money by selling goods he bought abroad on frequent shopping sprees for Uday. "On his birthdays, all the inner circle, including my husband, would go to Paris and buy everything — perfumes, shirts, ties, shoes, even underwear — for presents for him," she says.

      But Uday was a dangerous boss. She remembers going to a ball with her husband at the Al Rashid Hotel in 1993. During the party, she says, she saw Uday take out a pistol with a silencer attached and shoot a woman in the back of the head. The body was removed from the room in front of 400 guests. The party continued.

      When she later asked her husband why Uday had killed the woman, he told her not to ask.

      Hawaa and Ismail had two children, and as this year`s war approached, she was pregnant with their third.

      Ismail was ordered to fight with Fedayeen defending Saddam International Airport. Hawaa saw him the last time when he came home on a one-day leave, five days after their first son, Omar, was born by caesarean section. It was a bitter parting. Her husband did not want to fight but could not avoid it, she says. "They would have killed him."

      The battle for Baghdad in the first week of April didn`t reach Muhallah 665, but residents could hear the fierce fighting at the airport southwest of them, and the bombing of Iraqi army installations to the west. They huddled indoors in the dark, children crying, as the bombs fell. They ventured outdoors when the bombing stopped, but most were afraid to leave their own street.

      Unlike many regular army troops, Ismail did not quietly abandon his post — he feared Uday too much. He lost part of his right leg to a cluster bomb as U.S. forces closed in on the airport, colleagues told Hawaa later. Iraqi doctors in a crowded military hospital operated on him without medicine, and he was bleeding badly. But as the U.S. Army entered central Baghdad, the hospital was evacuated. Ismail managed to get himself into the street but passed out and died before he could reach another hospital, she was told.

      Thieves got his car, which had been used by his comrades to drive him to the hospital. In it was the family`s savings — 10 million dinars, about $6,500. When Hawaa received news that her husband was dead, she had an infant less than a week old; the 4-year-old, Amad; and 16-year-old Anis, who was to become her mainstay.

      She had no protector — her parents were dead, her only brother blind. Three other brothers had been killed in Iraq`s war with Iran. She already had lost her house in one of Uday`s habitual acts of cruelty. Ismail had been allowed to drive a car from Uday`s vast collection, a Toyota sedan. When it was stolen, Uday demanded Ismail replace it with another car five times as valuable — or he would cut off Ismail`s hands. Ismail and Hawaa sold their home to pay the debt.

      Hawaa had nowhere to turn. She began to sell their possessions — a sofa suite for $150, a dining room set for $200.

      She moved from the high-rent apartment she had shared with Ismail into a few bare rooms she could have for $25 a month. When the landlord began to make romantic advances and threatened to raise the rent, she moved again — into another family`s house down the street.

      An old, thin sofa covered with a throw rug is her main furniture, but her walls offer testimony to a former affluence — a fancy clock and several pictures of her husband in ornate frames. In one, he bends to shake the hand of Uday, who is dressed in traditional Arab robes and reclining in bed recovering from a 1997 assassination attempt.

      The parents of her elder daughter`s classmates, aware of her plight, give her small gifts. Aside from that, she has no income and lives on the food-ration basket all Iraqis receive. She has gone around asking for work, as a bookkeeper or a teacher, but the few available jobs generally go to people who worked before the war.

      Hawaa acknowledges that she and her husband benefited from a cruel regime, but she contends that they weren`t wrong to take what could be had — and that they weren`t alone.

      Even though she profited from her husband`s connection to the brutal and tyrannical Uday, she is viewed by her neighbors with sympathy — too many others have been similarly implicated.

      "Everywhere I go, people feel sorry for me because I have three children, but so far they do nothing," she says.

      The events of the past six months have left her numb. When Uday and Qusai were killed in the northern city of Mosul in July, she felt nothing but mild surprise that they would let themselves be caught.

      She says she feels a vague hurt when she sees the troops of the 82nd Airborne living in her neighborhood. In the next moment, however, she asks an American to tell the U.S. commander in the area about her situation — maybe he could help.

      "I wish our kids could maintain the same standard of living that we had before, because it is too difficult to live," she says. "When I finish everything at night, I wonder how I will go on.

      "Before, I was strong. But now I am alone, and I feel I am too weak to face these difficulties."

      She would like to remarry but realizes she is not a good prospect — a penniless widow with three children.

      "We have a proverb that says that `everything has gathered.` All problems have gathered. All at one time."

      The Prisoner

      A few blocks away, on Street 25, House No. 44, Sadoun Abdul Ameer is cheerily fixing up his small concrete house. He has finished painting and plastering inside, and on a wall has hung a 100-year-old Iranian rifle, its stock decorated with silver disks. An heirloom, it symbolizes that there is more than a little fight in the 43-year-old — even though he appears to be at peace. He is grateful to Americans, but like others, he wants them to leave.

      A smell of wet plaster wafts in the air as his children fetch white plastic chairs for guests. The floor is just poured concrete. White ceramic tiles will be added later to the three-room house.

      Ameer`s wife, Sahira, diminutive and several months pregnant, hovers in the background with the couple`s three children. She built this house but is not complaining about her husband`s redecoration. It is good to have him home again.

      Now a bit stout, looking distinguished with a short graying beard and neatly combed-back hair, he had spent five years in Abu Ghraib prison on the western edge of Baghdad before his release last year. He was sent there as a political prisoner in 1997, convicted of belonging to an illegal political party.

      Ameer looks at his wife gratefully. While he was being starved and beaten by Saddam Hussein`s henchmen, she kept the family together in the face of poverty and humiliation. With her black, foot-pedaled sewing machine, she eked out a meager living.

      The ordeal of Sadoun and Sahira Ameer began in 1996. He was a prosperous cigarette wholesaler, and they lived in a large southwest Baghdad home. One day that summer, four agents came to the house and took him away. Even now, he does not know if his arrest was motivated by someone`s envy — cigarettes was a hard-knuckled business — or because of his political activities.

      It is true he was a secret opponent of Hussein. He had helped draft a communique in response to the massacres carried out against Shiites who rose against Hussein in 1991, wrongly believing that the tyrant who favored his own Sunni minority was too weakened after the Persian Gulf War to survive.

      Ameer joined a cell that called for a united Islamic movement to oppose the "criminal regime." It was foolhardy, and he cannot explain why he had the courage to do it. For more than a year, Ameer and 14 others rounded up with him were beaten, starved and interrogated.

      Then, a special court was convened on July 2, 1997, to convict them. The proceedings lasted less than an hour. Ten of the men were swiftly executed. Ameer remembers their poignant parting — "Go with God," they told each other. Perhaps because Ameer never confessed, and there was scant evidence against him, he was spared. The revolutionary court sentenced him to 15 years. He was transported to Abu Ghraib in an ice cream truck.

      From the day of his arrest, Sahira began a quest to find him. She visited every official she could think of and wrote increasingly humble and plaintive letters to the intelligence service. No one even acknowledged he was in custody. She feared he had been killed.

      "Please sir, I have no other choice before me but to address your good self for assistance," begins one letter she sent to the director of Iraqi intelligence on Jan. 18, 1997. "Until now I have received no information about [my husband`s] whereabouts. Please, sir, I have children and I have no one to look after them in the difficult straits through which our dear country passes…. For your information, I descend from a decent family all of whose members are among the children of the revolution and of the beloved leader, Saddam Hussein, may God protect him."

      Showing the handwritten letter now, she is embarrassed by its servile tone but says it was the only way to approach the authorities. Her protestations of loyalty may have worked; afterward, she finally received confirmation that her husband was a prisoner, and soon had her first chance to visit him.

      "I did not recognize him, he was so thin," she says of that meeting. From a weight of 165 pounds, he had dwindled to about 100.

      During interrogation, Ameer recounts now, he was suspended by his arms and shocked. His sadistic questioners beat his hands and threatened to pull out his fingernails. He was nearly starved. There were two small meals a day — sometimes only bits of date or an onion and one piece of stale bread.

      His sentence had also called for the confiscation of all his property. Sahira and the children lost their house. His entire cigarette inventory worth 300 million dinars — $200,000 — was seized, although Sahira managed to retain some personal possessions she could sell. Even the family`s monthly food ration was reduced because Ameer was no longer living with them.

      After staying briefly with relatives, Sahira used the money she had scraped together to buy concrete blocks and began to build a house on a 1,000-square-foot plot in Muhallah 665 that she had inherited from a relative. At first, she and the children lived in the open. And for the most part they were shunned. They were Shiite, impoverished, and her husband was in prison for anti-regime activities. It was not a recipe for making friends, especially where many neighbors were military and intelligence officers from Sunni tribes rewarded for their loyalty to Hussein.

      Nevertheless, Sahira struggled on. She made dresses for the women of the neighborhood. They would mock her and upbraid her and underpay her, she says, but they kept returning because of her skill.

      "We had no furniture whatsoever," she says. "Just this sewing machine to make my living…. In winter, we all gathered together to be warm. For two years, we had no electricity or water inside, and we borrowed an electricity line from the neighbors. Some days we ate. Some days we had nothing."

      The children suffered taunting in school from teachers as well as classmates because of Ameer`s imprisonment. Daughter Ola says classmates would call her father a thief, and she would defend him as a political activist.

      The family was reunited when Hussein suddenly released all prisoners from Abu Ghraib, in an apparent bid to garner support from his own people as war clouds were gathering. Ameer was free.

      He did not even know where Sahira and the children were living, so he went by bus to his father`s house. "All my friends were celebrating my release, but I was thinking about them. I was impatient," he says.

      Sahira, meanwhile, had heard on the radio that prisoners were free.

      "I shouted with joy," she says. "I went into the street and threw candy." Then she went to find him.

      While her husband was in prison, the only neighbor to befriend her was Majda al Taie, the wife of Hussein functionary and intelligence officer Kadhim al Taie. When Majda learned that one of Sahira`s children was having a birthday, she surprised the child with a cake and began doing other things for Sahira. They became friends, and when Ameer got out of prison, he thanked the Al Taies.

      When the war reached Baghdad last spring and Al Taie took his family to his home village near Babylon, Ameer watched over their property on Street 2, at House No. 1. And since then, Ameer has offered his protection in case anyone threatened Al Taie because of his connection to the former government.

      Today, Kadhim considers Ameer his best friend. Sahira and Majda talk every day. They may have been on different sides of Hussein`s regime, but both families are Shiite in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood. Each feels a debt of gratitude to the other that transcends politics.

      "This type of loyalty may not be available in your country," Ameer says. "There are still old traditions in our country — maybe not as strong as they once were, but they exist. And one of them says, `Even the seventh neighbor should be treated like one of your family.` "

      The Baathist

      Abdul Qadir Naass al Suweidi, 62, who lives around the corner, has become invisible. Until April 9, the day Baghdad fell, he was one of the country`s most powerful bureaucrats, a director-general in the national secretariat of the Baath Party working in the regime`s inner sanctum providing party directives to the government. Much as Communist Party chieftains used to ride roughshod over Soviet state officials, a word from Suweidi would be sufficient to make government ministers quake.

      Even now, the balding Suweidi seems to scowl at those around him. He spends his days brooding. He keeps to his large, imposing house, decorated with blue glazed tiles, surrounded by a score of sons and daughters and grandchildren. He receives visitors at a table in his front garden, drawing angrily on his Caravan brand cigarettes.

      When Suweidi ventures out, it is in a simple white dishdasha (the ankle-length tunic traditionally worn by Iraqi men), often walking with a grandson to the market, still expecting — and receiving — deference from those he encounters.

      In his world, everything the Americans have done is wrong, and everything Saddam Hussein has done is justifiable.

      "Life is difficult these days," he says. "The people are suffering from cuts in electricity and in water. Add to that the state of the unemployed. Most citizens are jobless, especially since most people are used to living on a government salary. Finally, the question of security is affecting life in all its dimensions."

      He cannot understand why the American-led occupation authority is unwilling to pay him or any other top Baathist a salary, which he considers his due after 40 years of loyal service to the party.

      When there is a change in administration in the United States, he asks, blithely ignorant of American political life, do all the party workers stop getting paid? It also rankles that he cannot visit his old office, in the Republican Palace compound, which is now the headquarters of the chief civilian administrator, L. Paul Bremer III.

      When asked about the crimes of the Hussein regime, including the torture of his own neighbor Ameer and the mass graves of Shiites, Suweidi says flatly, "It is exaggerated." When pressed by someone who has seen the graves and talked to the torture victims, his face hardens. "Every government has enemies, and when it does, it must think of terminating them," he says. "It is natural to terminate the enemies of a regime."

      To him, Iraq had its laws and rules, and those who broke them deserved whatever was meted out. "Every citizen, every human being who is an outlaw should be judged by the laws of his own country."

      He is much more eager to talk about American wrongs. "Let me ask you something. Why did the Americans invade Iraq? What did they want from us?" Weapons of mass destruction were a pretext, he contends, and have not been found. And the stated goal of saving Iraqis from a dictatorship is too altruistic, he says.

      It was for the oil and for the sake of Israel, he believes, but the cost will be greater than America expected, he says.

      "The resistance escalates day after day because the Iraqis do not want to be colonized," he says. "We reject being the slaves of others."

      Eventually, he believes, the U.S. forces will find the cost too high. "I do expect that one day the Baath Party will control power again in Iraq," he says. "The Baath Party represents a very large sector of Iraq, and this is a fact."

      The Sheik

      Power in Muhallah 665 used to emanate from a nondescript square building on a side street half a mile from the market — the district Baath Party headquarters. It had offices for party bigwigs, files on residents and even its own detention cells. Today, there`s a sign out front with a blue dome and the words Masjad Islam — the Temple of Islam.

      Here, the power of the party has been supplanted by the power of Islam — specifically, the Shiite branch of Islam.

      A 25-year-old cleric from the neighborhood, Sheik Wisam al Fawadi, was the agent of the change. Up until the last days of the war, he was a political prisoner, having been arrested several months earlier on suspicion of being a subversive. When he was freed, he rushed to his neighborhood and found looters at the party headquarters. He claimed the building in the name of the Hawza, the Shiite religious leadership of Iraq, and in the name of God.

      Fawadi is an arresting figure, dressed in a long black robe and white turban, with bronze-colored skin, a short black beard, penetrating eyes and heavy black eyebrows that connect like a thick line of charcoal. He speaks with a calm dignity that belies his youth.

      Surrounded by acolytes, he receives visitors with formality in the former party secretary`s office, which he has decorated with photographs of revered ayatollahs and sayings of the prophet Muhammad in frames made of seashells. Nevertheless, there is a part of him that does not quite believe his good luck — that the takeover and transformation of the party headquarters into his own husseiniya, or Shiite mosque, is real.

      In the first chaotic days after the war, as looting was threatening to reduce Baghdad to ashes, the amorphous Hawza laid claim to almost every public institution in the capital — hospitals, schools, libraries, police stations and party buildings — in a bid to staunch the destruction. As GIs and Marines and civil administrators began to make their presence felt, the Hawza gradually surrendered most of the installations.

      In late April, U.S. troops in the neighborhood told Fawadi that the party building was public property and that he and his followers would have to move out. But the order was never enforced.

      Just in case, Fawadi has a short letter — in English — that he says is from the interim government`s religious endowments council, listing the building as a mosque. He hopes it will dissuade any eviction attempt.

      Some of Fawadi`s followers are also squatting in the building, and they have established a health clinic for the poor.

      For Fawadi, the takeover of the Baath Party headquarters is a matter of justice. Shiites were discriminated against by the former regime, he says, and there were no mosques assigned to Shiites in the neighborhood, even though a significant portion of its residents — he does not know how many — are Shiite.

      Fawadi is often seen walking in the neighborhood on some errand or another, his black robe billowing behind him. He grew up just five blocks away. He is on cordial but guarded terms with the U.S. forces here.

      "Escodan? He is my friend," he says of Capt. Joseph Escodan, the crew-cut paratroop officer put in charge of Muhallah 665 by his commander, Lt. Col. Eric Nantz.

      The U.S. troops potentially have a strong ally in Fawadi, who opposes the Sunni grandees and former Baathists in the neighborhood who form the bulk of sullen opposition to the Americans. He feels the Americans fail to appreciate that.

      In fact, Fawadi is still smarting about his arrest at their hands.

      According to his account, a Baathist made false charges against him, saying that Fawadi had threatened women who do not wear the hijab, or Muslim scarf. Fawadi says he preached in favor of the hijab but threatened no violence.

      Americans came to the mosque, handcuffed him and made him bow his head to the ground, Fawadi says. "This harms my dignity," he says. "They degraded and demeaned me."

      He says he was put in an Army vehicle and driven to the U.S. compound nearby, where he was questioned for several hours. Fawadi was soon released, but he remains bitter. "This is the same treatment that was used by Saddam`s security department," he says.

      Although the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is difficult to bear, Fawadi and other Shiite clerics are holding back their protests. But if the Hawza puts out the word to resist the Americans by force, Fawadi says, he would follow the instructions.

      "I feel that the Americans, the respectful ones anyway, the officers, want to find solutions for everything and to help," he says. "Sometimes they fail, but mainly they help. For now, their presence here is creating a parity and a balance. But when security prevails — and nothing is more dear to us — I think we would like, and the Americans too would like, for them to go home to their families."

      He is aware of the challenges facing the GIs who are his new neighbors. With his network of about 100 followers in the neighborhood, he believes he knows who is behind some of the shadowy attacks against the Americans. His followers tell him it is a mixture of Baathists and Wahhabis — Sunni Muslim fundamentalists — who are planting explosives almost daily along the main highways that carve out the boundaries of the district.

      The secular Baathists normally do not like the religiously austere Wahhabis, and the feeling is mutual, Fawadi says. But they are working together now because they have a common goal: to rid the country of U.S. forces.

      "They have agents here," he says darkly. "We find their leaflets here and there in the streets."

      The attackers are contemptible, in his view.

      "These people have no scruples," he says. "They were enjoying lives of privilege before. Now they have no object in life, no hope for the future. So they will do anything to try to get back their places."

      The Officer

      Lt. Col. Nantz and his Red Falcons wear a patch on their shoulders with two A`s — for All-American — and in conversation they project a beguiling blend of self-sacrifice and patriotism.

      They have traveled far to patrol nine dusty neighborhoods of western Baghdad, Muhallah 665 among them. Some of their job is mundane — overseeing the restoration of bridges and clogged sewer lines, and making sure that the market that sells propane gas is functioning. But some is adrenalin-filled — chasing after the rebels who lob mortar rounds and plant roadside bombs.

      They drove in from Kuwait in late March, getting hit with enemy fire as soon as they arrived in the southern city of Samawa. They held on and defended supply routes heading north, and finally entered Baghdad. Then, on April 23, they assumed control of Fallouja, the city that would become the hottest battle zone between the Army and the pro-Hussein insurgency.

      There, trouble hit. On the night of April 28, people were firing weapons in the air "like popcorn popping" and marching to protest the presence of U.S. troops, Nantz says. He drove through town issuing warnings to disperse and cease firing. But one knot of people formed again, gathering steam as it marched toward the school where troops were stationed. Soldiers on the roof of the school came under attack, the Army says, a statement the people in Fallouja dispute. Perceiving their lives at risk, the soldiers fired. According to residents, 17 Iraqis died. Although the action of the troops was endorsed up the chain of command, the Red Falcons were moved. And that is how Nantz inherited part of Baghdad, parking his battalion near the minarets of Hussein`s grandiose Mother of All Battles Mosque.

      Since then, two major car bombings — an attack on the Jordanian Embassy and the suicide bombing of the Al Kudra police station — have rocked Nantz`s area. And two of his men — Spc. Douglas J. Weismantle, 28, of Pittsburgh, and Pfc. Jose Casanova, 23, of El Monte — died when an Iraqi truck rolled over on their Humvee in a traffic accident.

      But compared with Fallouja, it is quiet here. Nantz, 40, a soft-spoken North Carolinian with a buzz haircut, usually wears sweat-stained desert camouflage, with a flak jacket and helmet when he leaves the base. He keeps up a busy round of municipal council meetings and other civic and military duties with the aid of a hand-held computer datebook, and takes pride in the fact that his chunk of Baghdad is getting safer by the day, at least for Iraqis.

      For U.S. soldiers, he acknowledges, it is more dangerous, with casualties in Iraq steeply higher in November than in previous months. Recently, his base came under mortar shelling for the first time, although the two rounds landed outside the perimeter. But the number of IEDs — improvised explosive devices — is going down in the area. Even in the case of the mortar attack, there was a silver lining: Residents stepped forward the next day and helped Nantz`s troops find the hidden mortar tube, left half-buried in the soil.

      "You have a mix in this town, and you probably have less than 1% out there actively engaged in trying to do harm to U.S. soldiers," he says. "Among the rest of the population, some support us 100%, some are neutral, and some want us to leave but are not actively engaged in terrorist activities. It is just a hodgepodge of opinions and attitudes.

      "Our strategy is, we really work on maintaining basic support. We want those who are neutral to stay neutral, or to come to our side of the fence," he says.

      "And I am sure some people have already changed their attitudes."

      Nantz recalls one Iraqi asking him if he has children, and if he wouldn`t rather be home with them than occupying a foreign country. In fact, he has three children: two boys, 11 and 5, and a 10-year-old girl. He calls them the "unsung heroes."

      Nantz`s voice grows quiet. "It would be difficult for me to be here if I didn`t believe in the cause," he says. "Everybody here is sacrificing in some way. I believe that is because it`s our turn.

      "In a large part, the reason I am here is because of my children," he says. "Because I believe that if we have a stable Iraq, then my children could have a better place to grow up in the United States."

      The cost since the start of their deployment in February has been high for his soldiers, he says.

      "Fifteen soldiers have had to redeploy because of combat injuries, and many others because of accidents in a combat environment," he says. "Some of these soldiers are still struggling with their injuries, and four great Americans from my command will not return to their family and friends. I take that personal.

      "Freedom isn`t free…. It must be earned, or it will never be obtained and it will not be kept."

      It is nearly dusk, and the light is fading. Another day in the new Muhallah 665 is ending, and the sound that comes through the open door is the turning engines and rattling gravel of a pair of Humvees returning from patrol.

      The American officer, defending a neighborhood where some people are grateful, others are resentful and many merely tolerate his presence, says goodnight, and walks away.


      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 15:15:30
      Beitrag Nr. 10.380 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 15:31:38
      Beitrag Nr. 10.381 ()
      December 11, 2003

      Bush Drops the Mask
      They Died for Halliburton
      By DAVID VEST

      The mask came off this week. George "No More Beating Around The" Bush came right out and admitted it, on camera no less. American soldiers have died in Iraq, and are still dying, said the Commander-in-Chief, so that Halliburton, Bechtel and other corporate contributors to his campaign can make money.

      When it came down to money, Bush dropped all pretense. He blatantly didn`t care whether he looked like a villain or a weeping clown.

      "It makes sense," said the Selected One, for "countries that have risked lives" to "have the benefit" from the contracts to rebuild Iraq.

      Countries that did not support Bush`s plan for an unprovoked, shoot-first preemptive strike on Iraq, including countries that merely asked him to hold off for 30 days before invading unilaterally, need not apply.

      "Friendly coalition folks risked their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that, and that`s what the US taxpayers expect," Bush said.

      (No, Mr. President. What US taxpayers expect is a legitimately elected government, a president with some integrity and intelligence, a congress with some courage, clean air to breath and water to drink, a functioning economy, a foreign policy that doesn`t make us cringe when we think about it ....)

      The naked admission of the war`s profit motive is but the most recent example of a new trend in Washington: officials coming right out and admitting the obvious. Recently Pentagon advisor Richard Perle, for example, confessed openly that the entire invasion of Iraq was probably illegal.

      Apparently no one in DC sees any need to fear repercussions. This is an administration that no longer cares what anyone thinks about what it thinks. The more it gets away with, the more it wants. If Bush had the slightest apprehension that he might not get his way, he would speak in a different tone with us.

      Nevertheless, judging by the initial response to this latest policy pronouncement (it has been met with immediate and overwhelming international condemnation), the plan needs a little tweaking. With the following minor changes, we could perhaps cut the president a little slack and get behind him on this.

      ONE, No American company that did business with Saddam Hussein while he was brutalizing his own people should get a contract. This clause would exclude most of the cronies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

      TWO, The managers and directors of any company that is found to have overcharged the American people under these contracts should go to jail. (The Pentagon says that Halliburton has already overcharged them by $61 million for gasoline.) If Ashcroft still wants to hold anybody without benefit or trial or counsel, he could start with these folks.

      THREE, Since the plan is based on consideration of "those who risked their lives," all profits beyond reasonable and necessary expenses (subject to rigorous independent auditing) should be divided among the families of coalition soldiers who lost their lives in the invasion or suffered long-lasting disabilities. Or is the president under the impression that the lives of Halliburton, Bechtel, Fluor etc. executives were at risk?

      FOUR, Since Iraq is pre-eminent among "countries that have risked lives" in this conflict, an amount equal to the total value of all contracts should first be set aside for direct reparations to the families of Iraqi civilians killed or maimed by coalition forces.

      FIVE, Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety should be paramount, meaning that the administration of Iraq`s natural resources should be turned over at once to the United Nations.

      I know, I know, it`s nuts. The very sight of Bush on TV these days is enough to drive us crazy. Nothing he says or does can surprise us anymore. His shamelessness knows no limit. Increasingly we simply can`t bear to look at him.

      David Vest writes the Rebel Angel column for CounterPunch. He and his band, The Willing Victims, just released a scorching new CD, Way Down Here.

      He can be reached at: davidvest@springmail.com
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 17:26:09
      Beitrag Nr. 10.382 ()
      ZNet | Iraq

      baker Takes The Loaf
      President`s Business Partner Slices Up Iraq

      by Greg Palast; December 13, 2003

      Well, ho ho ho! It`s an early Christmas for James Baker III.

      All year the elves at his law firm, Baker Botts of Texas, have been working day and night to prevent the families of the victims of the September 11 attack from seeking information from Saudi Arabia on the Kingdom`s funding of Al Qaeda fronts.

      It`s tough work, but this week came the payoff when President Bush appointed Baker, the firm`s senior partner, to restructure the debts of the nation of Iraq.

      And who will net the big bucks under Jim Baker`s plan? Answer: his client, Saudi Arabia, which claims $30.7 billion due from Iraq plus $12 billion in reparations from the First Gulf war.

      PUPPET STRINGS

      Let`s ponder what`s going on here.

      We are talking about something called "sovereign debt." And unless George Bush has finally `fessed up and named himself Pasha of Iraq, he is not their sovereign. Mr. Bush has no authority to seize control of that nation`s assets nor its debts.

      But our President is not going to let something as trivial as international law stand in the way of a quick buck for Mr. Baker. To get around the wee issue that Bush has no legal authority to mess with Iraq`s debt, the White House has crafted a neat little subterfuge. The official press release says the President has not appointed Mr. Baker. Rather Mr. Bush is "responding to a request from the Iraqi Governing Council." That is, Bush is acting on the authority of the puppet government he imposed on Iraqis at gunpoint.

      I will grant the Iraqi "government" has some knowledge of international finance; its key member, Ahmed Chalabi, is a convicted bank swindler.

      The Bush team must see the other advantage in having the rump rulers of Iraq pretend to choose Mr. Baker; the US Senate will not have to review or confirm the appointment. If you remember, Henry Kissinger ran away from the September 11 commission with his consulting firm tucked between his legs after the Senate demanded he reveal his client list. In the case of Jim Baker, who will be acting as a de facto US Treasury secretary for international affairs, our elected Congress will have no chance to ask him who is paying his firm.… nor even require him to get off conflicting payrolls.

      This takes the Bush administration` Conflicts-R-Us appointments process to a new low. Or maybe there`s no conflict at all. If you see Jim Baker`s new job as working not to protect a new Iraqi democracy but to protect the loot of the old theocracy of Saudi Arabia, the conflict disappears.

      Iraq`s debt totals something on the order of $120 billion to $150 billion, depending on who`s counting. And who`s counting is very important.

      Much of the so-called debt to Saudi Arabia was given to Saddam Hussein to fight a proxy war for the Saudis against their hated foe, the Shi`ia of Iran. And as disclosed by a former Saudi diplomat, the kingdom`s sheiks handed about $7 billion to Saddam under the table in the 1980`s to build an "Islamic bomb."

      Should Iraqis today and those not yet born have to be put in a debtor`s prison to pay off the secret payouts to Saddam? James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, says `No!` Wolfensohn has never been on my Christmas card list, but in this case he`s got it right: Iraq should simply cancel $120 billion in debt.

      Normally, the World Bank is in charge of post-war debt restructuring. That`s why the official name of the World Bank is "International Bank for Reconstruction and Development." This is the Bank`s expertise. Bush has rushed Baker in to pre-empt the debt write-off the World Bank would certainly promote.

      "I FIXED FLORIDA"

      Why is our President so concerned with the wishes of Mr. Baker`s clientele? What does Bush owe Baker? Let me count the ways, beginning with the 2000 election.

      Just last week Baker said, "I fixed the election in Florida for George Bush." That was the substance of his remarks to an audience of Russian big wigs as reported to me by my somewhat astonished colleagues at BBC television.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 17:31:44
      Beitrag Nr. 10.383 ()
      An editorial
      December 13, 2003

      The best allies the United States had in the months prior to the invasion of Iraq were not those countries that grudgingly went along with George W. Bush`s rush to war. The best allies were Canada, France and Germany.

      These three countries, all of which have been consistent and well-regarded sources of information and analysis for the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. international security agencies, explained that Iraq did not pose an immediate - or particularly serious - threat to its neighbors in the Middle East, let alone to the distant United States. They reminded U.S. officials that there was no evidence to suggest Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network. They detailed the success of past U.N. weapons inspections, which had destroyed most if not all of Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction, and they proposed a regimen of aggressive inspections to ensure that any remaining weapons - and the capacity to develop them - would be eliminated.

      Canada, France, Germany and other countries did exactly what friends should do. They tried to prevent the United States from making a terrible mistake. Had their counsel been considered, hundreds of young Americans and thousands of Iraqis would have been spared death, Iraq`s infrastructure would still be in place, terrorist networks would not be operating with increasing abandon in unstable regions of Iraq, and the United States would not be even more of a target than it was before.

      The Bush administration made a terrible mistake when it rejected the advice of this country`s oldest and best allies and launched what was essentially a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Now it is compounding that mistake by banning companies headquartered in countries that opposed the war from bidding for the $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq`s infrastructure. Never mind that Canadian, French and German firms have far better track records of completing difficult reconstruction projects - without profiteering - than do U.S. firms such as Dick Cheney`s Halliburton.

      What kind of leader thinks that punishing friends who disagree is more important than doing what is right? What kind of leader thinks his country can dismiss long-term alliances on a whim? What kind of leader jealously guards control of a country he has come to control via the route of invasion?

      What kind of leader? The kind of colonial leader the American revolutionaries revolted against in 1776: a king named George.


      Published: 2:14 PM 12/12/03


      madison.com is operated by Capital Newspapers, publishers of the Wisconsin State Journal, The Capital Times, Agri-View and Apartment Showcase. All contents Copyright ©, Capital Newspapers. All rights reserved.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 18:15:47
      Beitrag Nr. 10.384 ()








      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 18:33:45
      Beitrag Nr. 10.385 ()
      Saturday, December 13, 2003
      War News for December 13, 2003 Draft

      Jede Meldung ein Link: für Freitag und von heute
      http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/



      Bring `em on: One US soldier killed, two wounded in bomb ambush near Ramadi.

      Bring `em on: Two Iraqi CDC members killed on patrol near Samarra.

      Bring `em on: Pipeline sabotaged near Beiji.

      Bring `em on: Roadside bombs defused near US positions in Kirkuk.

      Bring `em on: Attacks on US troops averaged 21 per day over the last week.

      Analysis: Lieutenant AWOL`s foreign policy reflects his personal vindictive streak.

      Soldier pleads guilty to self-inflicted wounding in Iraq.

      Analysis: Bush`s neo-colonialism will only provoke more resistance. "On its own, the privatisation plan, if implemented successfully, would be a disaster for the bulk of Iraqi citizens (as is the case in most of Latin America and central Asia), but the situation here is unique. These `reforms` are being imposed at tank point. Many Iraqis perceive them as a recolonisation of the country, and they have provoked an effective and methodical resistance. On the military level, the situation continues to deteriorate, thus remaining the source of numerous internal difficulties and sustaining friction and strife within the west."

      Coalition of the Wobbly: Norway may withdraw troops from Iraq.

      Rummy seeks better intelligence on Iraqi insurgency. "Despite his optimistic public comments about the success of U.S. forces in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has privately expressed the need for better intelligence on whether Iraqi insurgents are replenishing their ranks faster than they are being killed and captured… Retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, who teaches strategy and security issues at Boston University, said Rumsfeld is `right to be concerned. There has never been a time in U.S. military history when, six months into a war, we have known so little about the enemy.`"

      Clerics criticize US occupation during Friday sermons.

      More Iraqi soldiers desert. " The first mistake, according to those in charge of the training program, was that the Iraqi soldiers` salaries were too low. Privates earn $70 a month -- about half the amount paid to the people who fill sandbags around the Baghdad headquarters of the U.S.-led occupation authority, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton said. For several months, Eaton has been asking for extra money for the soldiers…Another problem, Eaton said, was that a civilian company was hired to conduct the training rather the military. The $48 million contract was awarded to Vinnell Corp. in the spring, when U.S. forces in Iraq were stretched thin and cutting loose several hundred soldiers to oversee the training would have been difficult."

      Rebels with a cause. The coming civil war in Iraq.

      US holds about 10,000 detainees in Iraq.

      Commentary

      Editorial: Bush`s contracting policy shafts the American taxpayer.

      Opinion: Neo-ineptitude. "The United States has a mess on its hands in Iraq, and the man who may have done more than anyone else to bring that about shot his own country in the foot yet again this week." The author is correct in his assessment that Wolfie and the neo-cons are a bunch of incompetent screw-ups. But it`s clear that the neo-cons are still in their jobs because they`re doing a good job as far as Lieutenant AWOL is concerned. A competent President would have shit-canned them all a long time ago.

      Opinion: Bush`s contracting is bad policy. "Not winning reconstruction contracts won’t hurt the people of Germany, France and Canada. But it will thrust most of the burden back on Americans. And it has dealt a serious blow to relations with our allies, on whom we must rely in the war on terror."

      Opinion: "Lurching from one publicity stunt to the next, the Bush administration`s Iraq policy appears to be - to use an old Texas saying - all hat and no cattle."

      Editorial: Bush`s poor diplomacy. "The administration`s position on the contracts echoes its disturbing tendency to make unnecessary enemies in a world that now is full of necessary ones. Instead of clinging to, even nurturing, resentment toward Germany, France and Russia about their prewar criticism, the United States had an opportunity to turn the page."

      Casualty Reports

      Local story: Indiana soldier killed in Iraq.

      Local story: Pennsylvania soldier wounded in Iraq.

      Local story: Idaho soldier killed in Iraq.

      Local story: Ohio soldier missing in Iraq.

      Home Front

      Despite three years of miserable failure, Lieutenant AWOL boasts about a "year of accomplishment" in his weekly radio address. Here`s the transcript.






      # posted by yankeedoodle : 2:19 AM
      Comments (20)
      Friday, December 12, 2003
      War News for December 11 and 12, 2003

      Bring `em on: One US soldier killed, 14 wounded by suicide bomber in Ramadi.

      Bring `em on: Green Zone mortared in Baghdad. Two US soldiers wounded.

      Bring `em on: Two Polish soldiers wounded by roadside bomb ambush near Hilla.

      Bring `em on: Two US soldiers, two journalists wounded in ambush in Mosul.

      Bring `em on: Iraqi policeman killed by roadside bomb ambush near Baghdad.

      Saddam Hussein`s palace likely choice for new US embassy in Baghdad.

      Fashion maven and incompetent adminisrator L. Paul Bremer says to expect an increase in anti-US attacks in Iraq.

      CENTCOM reports US soldier dies of "non-hostile gunshot wound."

      CENTCOM reports one US soldier drowned, one missing in accident.

      Almost half of the soldiers in the first New Iraqi Army battalion quit.

      Cheney`s Halliburton gouges American taxpayers on Iraq contracts.

      Soldiers were pre-screened for Lieutenant AWOL`s Operation Jive Turkey. In contrast, when President Clinton visited American troops at Tuzla in 1996, there was no effort made to "screen" the troops. That`s the difference between a real President and a phony PX hero like Lieutenant AWOL.

      Commentary

      Editorial: Army nurse sounds off about Operation Jive Turkey. "It`s too bad Mr. Bush didn`t add us to his holiday agenda. The men said the same, but you`ll never read that in the paper. Mr. President would rather lift fake turkeys for photo ops, it seems. Maybe because my patients wouldn`t make very pleasant photos."

      Opinion: Christmas for Halliburton. "White House officials, when asked for comment, responded: `We have a remedy for this situation already in the works. Halliburton will be donating the $128 million to charity. And that will be that. This whole situation just serves to support our recent decision to exclude most of the world from the Iraqi reconstruction contract bidding process. Imagine the problems we would have trying to ride herd on all these other companies from all these other countries. They’re just so many. Halliburton graft and corruption is just the usual American graft and corruption we are all used to. We know what it looks like and smells like. This foreign stuff, phew! We’d all have to go back to school to figure it out.`"

      Opinion: In this administration the right hand seldom knows what the far-right hand is doing. "Maybe I`m giving Paul Wolfowitz too much credit, but I don`t think this was mere incompetence. I think the administration`s hard-liners are deliberately sabotaging reconciliation."

      Casualty Reports

      Local story: Oregon soldier dies in Iraq.

      Local story: California soldier dies in Iraq.

      Local story: Oregon soldier dies in Iraq.

      Local story: California soldier killed in Iraq.

      Local story: Connecticut soldier killed in Iraq.

      Local story: New Hampshire soldier wounded in Iraq.

      Local story: Ohio soldier dies in Iraq.





      # posted by yankeedoodle : 12:22 PM
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 18:40:10
      Beitrag Nr. 10.386 ()
      Posted on Sat, Dec. 13, 2003



      Retaliation over Iraq fits Bush`s pattern

      By RON HUTCHESON
      Knight Ridder Newspapers

      WASHINGTON - President Bush`s decision to take revenge on countries that opposed the war in Iraq shocked the diplomatic world, but it fits his longstanding pattern of rewarding friends and punishing enemies.

      In a family that prizes loyalty, Bush is known for playing hardball with anyone who crosses him. By his description, he was the chief loyalty enforcer in his father`s White House. Later, as governor of Texas, he cracked the whip on Republicans who failed to back his policies - a practice he has taken with him to Washington.

      "He`s a velvet hammer. He can charm with the best of them, but he can also cut you off at the knees if he thinks you`ve got it coming," said Thomas DeFrank, a veteran Washington journalist who has firsthand experience with Bush`s wrath. "He never forgets."

      Now Bush is making sure that foreign critics of his Iraq policy pay a price by denying them a major role in Iraq`s reconstruction. Companies based in the offending countries will not be allowed to serve as prime contractors on any Iraq projects.

      Although the policy was drafted and announced at the Pentagon, Bush gave it his full support. In his view, countries that opposed the war should not reap any financial benefit from the sacrifices of American troops and their foreign allies.

      The policy has provoked outrage in Canada, Russia, Germany and France, all of which are on the contract blacklist. Even some of Bush`s Republican allies have criticized his approach as heavy-handed.

      But some longtime Bush watchers weren`t surprised.

      "He has this thing about personal loyalty," said Tom Pauken, a Dallas businessman who headed the Texas Republican Party when Bush was governor. "It`s: If you`re not with us 100 percent, you`re against us. And the more independent you are, the more you`re against us."

      Loyalty has always been a highly valued trait in the close-knit Bush family.

      When Bush`s father, George H. W. Bush, was president, the younger Bush served as the president`s eyes and ears within the White House.

      "I was the enforcer when I thought things were going wrong," he told Washington writer Ann Grimes in an interview for her 1990 book on political spouses. "I had the ability to go and lay down some behavioral modification."

      No transgression was too big or too minor for his attention.

      In late 1991, Bush helped force John Sununu`s resignation as White House chief of staff by telling Sununu that he had become a liability to the president. He made political adviser Lee Atwater apologize to first lady Barbara Bush for his lack of discretion after Atwater posed for Esquire magazine in boxer shorts, with his pants around his ankles.

      Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate Republican from Connecticut, ran afoul of Bush by voting against his father`s 1989 legislative program more than any other GOP lawmaker. Bush called Dorothy Stapleton, Shays` chief campaign fund-raiser, and told her to rein in the maverick congressman.

      "Junior phoned me this afternoon about this, and I reassured him that I had already taken up the gauntlet," Stapleton told the first President Bush in a follow-up letter that`s on file at the George Bush Library in College Station, Texas.

      "It definitely got my attention," Shays recalled in an interview years later, when the younger Bush was running for president. "He`s a tough, sharp, intelligent, take-no-prisoners kind of person."

      Bush turned his anger on DeFrank, then a White House correspondent for Newsweek, when the magazine published a cover story exploring the notion that the elder Bush was a "wimp."

      DeFrank, now Washington bureau chief for the New York Daily News, had been promised inside access during the re-election campaign. Bush revoked the offer.

      "You`re out of business," he told the reporter.

      As governor of Texas, Bush demanded loyalty from his fellow Republicans.

      Republican state Rep. Toby Goodman said Bush sought his support for property tax reductions near the start of the 1997 legislative session by grabbing Goodman`s lapels during a face-to-face encounter.

      "I want to bring those property taxes down," Bush told the legislator, "and I`m going to kick your butt if you don`t go along with me."

      Pauken, the former state GOP chairman, said his relationship with Bush soured when he refused to back the property tax bill.

      Bush has also sought to enforce loyalty from the White House. Three months after taking office, he set the tone for his administration by abruptly firing Mike Parker as head of the Army Corps of Engineers after Parker publicly disagreed with cuts in the agency`s budget.

      The hardball tactics backfired later in 2001 when Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont quit the Republican Party and became an independent, giving control of the Senate to the Democrats. Sources close to Jeffords said his decision was at least partly the result of White House efforts to punish him for opposing elements of Bush`s agenda.

      The White House retaliation over Iraq has also produced a backlash. Administration officials acknowledge that the anger in foreign capitals will make it harder for Bush to persuade other countries to forgive debts owed by Iraq. Still, Bush shows no signs of backing down.

      "It`s very simple," he said in defense of the policy. "Our people risk their lives. Friendly coalition folks risk their lives. Therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that."






      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      © 2003 KRT Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
      http://www.miami.com
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 18:48:39
      Beitrag Nr. 10.387 ()
      Dec. 13, 2003. 08:24 AM


      MITCH POTTER/TORONTO STAR


      Protesters march yesterday outside a U.S.-held detention facility near the Sunni stronghold of Falluja, about 60 kilometres west of Baghdad. They were demanding the release of friends and relatives.

      In Iraq`s Sunni heartland, rebels have a new cause
      They`re against Saddam and occupiers

      But the real fear is rising Shiite power


      MITCH POTTER
      MIDDLE EAST BUREAU

      FALLUJA, Iraq— There is a new kind of resistance taking hold in this rebel stronghold of Iraq`s seething Sunni triangle and its name is not Saddam Hussein.

      Nor, in fact, is it composed of imported fighters serving the call of Al Qaeda.

      Though Baath party loyalists and foreign jihadists are almost exclusively cited by American-led coalition authorities as the sources of the insurgency that continues to harass Iraq`s stability, the streets of Falluja are filled with talk of a patriot uprising far more grassroots in nature.

      On paper — and there is paper, in leaflet form, making the rounds in this city 60 kilometres west of Baghdad — at least one branch of the new resistance calls itself the Popular Iraqi Liberation Front.

      Its avowed mission: ousting the occupation forces.

      But not in the name of Saddam.

      The group is calling for the United Nations, the Arab League and the Islamic Conference to take over the task of giving Iraq back to the Iraqis.

      "The front claims its legal responsibility for all the armed actions against the American and British occupying forces and their allies," the pamphleteers said in a notice picked off a Falluja street this week.

      "And it also announces its non-alliance with the oppressive Baath regime. There is no link between the current popular and national resistance and any oppressive Baath regime resistance."

      In a threatening aside to the Iraqi police, the group warned that members of the newly constituted security force are under continuing surveillance and any information provided to the occupying forces "will cost you a just price."

      And in an aside to Iraqis at large, the pamphleteers disclaim any responsibility for acts of sabotage against Iraqi infrastructure, blaming instead the Americans and British "as efforts to plant sedition and hatred between the resisters and the people."

      Many in Iraq`s Sunni Muslim heartland would love to persuade the rest of the country the conflict is as simple as this. But in one of the world`s most complicated societies, it stands to reason that what exists now is one of the world`s most complicated resistance movements.

      There are indeed many Baath loyalists waging war, and indeed some foreign jihadists, although coalition sources privately admit their numbers may be far fewer than first believed.

      And even those homegrown Iraqi mujahedeen warriors who denounce both Saddam and the occupation in the same breath appear to be fighting what they perceive as a horrifying threat to generations of Sunni privilege as much as an infidel occupation.

      Fully eight months after the fall of Saddam, something appears to be happening in the Sunni Muslim heartland so favoured by his largesse. Pugnacious anti-Americanism remains as strong as ever, but the motivation behind it appears to be changing from an almost sullen longing for the way things were to a more survivalist and clearly sectarian view of what will come next.

      "We confess Saddam was a bad man. And he was Sunni," said Falluja shopkeeper Omar Ali Jasm, 28, who described himself as "a sympathizer to the new Sunni political movement" represented by the pamphlets now papering the triangle.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      `Iraq needs us. We are the only ones who can run this country. This is our history.`

      Omar Ali Jasm, Sunni shopkeeper

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      "We in the resistance also hate him. Our struggle is not to get him back. It is about stopping the Shiites from taking power and destroying Iraq," he said.

      "Iraq needs us. We are the only ones who can run this country. This is our history."

      If Jasm and other Sunnis in Falluja suffer from a decidedly undemocratic sense of entitlement about the notions of the new Iraq, they come by it honestly. For it was not only Saddam, but also the British mandarins of the early 20th century, and indeed the Ottoman Turks, who saw in the Sunni minority the makings of natural leadership.

      By contrast, Iraq`s historically vanquished Shiite majority — now comprising at least 60 per cent of Iraq`s estimated 25 million people — is warming to the idea of democracy as never before. Let the voting begin now is the message from the Shiite spiritual leaders of Najaf.

      But with centuries of historic advantage at stake, the living generations of Sunnis weaned on 35 years of dictatorial brutality are starting to make the sounds of a post-Saddam ultimatum: no peace with democracy.

      "The Shiites are not the kind of people who can rule even themselves, let alone a country," Jasm said. "They can play a role, but not as leaders. They are influenced by Iran. And we believe they will try to run the country according to religion. It won`t work."

      The overlapping tribal and Islamic loyalties of Iraq`s Sunni population are all the more indecipherable now, as leaders in both camps duck journalists for fear of risking arrest on the basis of pro-resistance statements or, alternately, failing to empathize with grassroots resentment.

      But in the backroads of Falluja, Sheikh Bilah Ahmed Ismail, an Islamic scholar specializing in sharia law, was unafraid to speak. Seated in a spartan living room as U.S. F-16 warplanes flew overhead, Ismail offered clear delineations on how and why the resistance will continue.

      "Even many Sunnis suffered under Saddam. Some of the resistance is fighting in his name, but the stronger voice among Sunnis is fighting against his name," said Ismail.

      "So the mujahedeen of the resistance, Saddam has nothing to do with them. Instead, they fight for two reasons: We will never accept colonization; we see a national task to drive the Americans from our country.

      "And just as important, we fear Shiite power."

      Ismail said the call has been taken up virtually across the tribal spectrum. And though the imams of Falluja and other Sunni cities have gone silent, their voice is hardly needed.

      "There is no need for the imam to speak out. We already know. He will be arrested for speaking of jihad. Islam says very clearly that everybody is obliged to join jihad to defend people, country, property," he said.

      Discord among the varying threads of rebellion centres on the targets. For Ismail and many others, the distinction between resistance and sabotage should be clearly drawn.

      "Anyone who attacks a pipeline with bombs is wrong. They deserve to be turned in to the (coalition) authorities," he said.

      "Anyone who attacks Iraqi policemen, they are also wrong. And anyone who would attack the United Nations, or the clerics of Najaf, they too are wrong.

      "For these acts, I blame the infiltrators to Iraq. As Donald Rumsfeld confessed, Iraq is becoming a front for terrorism. We don`t need these people. And it was the Americans who opened the borders and allowed them to come."




      Toronto Star.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 19:49:36
      Beitrag Nr. 10.388 ()


      Retired officers of the Iraqi army set fire to barricades at the entrance of the British army headquarters during a protest demanding their pensions, in the southern city of Basra, December 13, 2003. The top U.S. general in Iraq said he would rethink the Iraqi army pay structure after a wave of recruits quit the new force over low salaries.

      U.S. General to Review Pay After Iraq Army Walkout
      Sat December 13, 2003 01:14 PM ET


      By Michael Georgy
      BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The top U.S. general in Iraq said on Saturday he would rethink the Iraqi army pay structure after a wave of recruits quit the new force over low salaries.

      His remarks came after a bomb killed a U.S. soldier west of Baghdad, the latest in a series of deadly attacks that have increased domestic pressure on the U.S. administration over Iraq and led it to accelerate plans to hand power over to Iraqis.

      Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez acknowledged soldiers who quit over salaries of $150 monthly for senior officers may have a legitimate grievance.

      "We`re in the process of reviewing the pay scales to determine what needs to be done there to ensure that they have a decent standard of living," he told reporters in Baghdad.

      Plans for a 40,000-strong new Iraqi army to help replace U.S. forces on Iraq`s streets hit a snag this week when officials of the U.S.-led civil administration said almost half of the 700-man first unit had quit over pay.

      Those troops, along with larger police and security forces, are central to U.S. plans to turn responsibility for security and formal sovereignty over to Iraqis by mid-2004, ahead of U.S. presidential elections where the U.S. occupation of Iraq looms.

      Sanchez said he hoped to have a solution on the pay issue in the weeks to come, adding: "I believe our targets for building the new Iraqi army are still valid."

      Washington`s Iraq troubles extended to Europe, where the defense minister of Germany -- which opposed the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein -- said U.S. troops were ill-prepared for their mission of preparing Iraq for democracy.

      The remarks reflect the depth of transatlantic bitterness over Iraq following a Pentagon decision to limit $18.6 billion in Iraq reconstruction contracts to countries that backed the United States, freezing out the likes of Germany, France and China.

      European Commission officials are studying whether the restrictions violate World Trade Organization rules.


      CONTRACTS ROW CONTINUES

      The heat over Iraq also reached the U.S. administration at home, as President Bush acknowledged that a company once linked to his deputy Dick Cheney may have overcharged for deliveries of fuel to Baghdad.

      Bush administration critics say Halliburton, of which Cheney was once chief executive, unduly benefited from government connections. The fuel deliveries were made under a contract awarded to Halliburton in March without competition.

      Underlining security troubles that have plagued Iraq since April, Iraqi police and U.S. soldiers cordoned off an area near a Baghdad hotel where Western contractors stay, fearing a bomb had been planted there.

      In the southern port city of Basra, hundreds of former Iraqi army officers demanding back pay blocked streets around the headquarters of the civil administration, burning tires and throwing stones.

      In Tikrit, the center of the hunt for the ousted Iraqi leader, the U.S. Army said it had disciplined a senior officer who admitted firing a pistol near an Iraqi`s head and letting his troops beat the man during an interrogation.

      In a statement, the U.S. military said that Lieutenant-Colonel Allen West had been fined $5,000 and submitted a request to retire, but would avoid a court martial. It cited "mitigating factors."

      West had told a military tribunal his actions were wrong but that he was protecting the lives of his men while interrogating the Iraqi man, who he believed had information about plots to attack U.S. troops.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 21:33:29
      Beitrag Nr. 10.389 ()
      Skull And Bones

      CBS. 60 Minutes. Broadcast Oct. 5, 2003

      There are secrets that George W. Bush guards at least as carefully as any entrusted to a president.

      He`s forbidden to share these secrets even with the vice president -- secrets he has held ever since his days as an undergraduate at Yale.

      Zwischenspeichern und Speichern:
      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/cbs60minskul…
      Video direkt auf der Seite:
      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5244.htm
      In his senior year, Mr. Bush - like his father and his grandfather - belonged to Skull and Bones, an elite secret society that includes some of the most powerful men of the 20th century.

      All Bonesmen, as they`re called, are forbidden to reveal what goes on in their inner sanctum, the windowless building on the Yale campus that is called "The Tomb."

      There are conspiracy theorists who see Skull and Bones behind everything that goes wrong, and occasionally even right in the world.

      Apart from presidents, Bones has included cabinet officers, spies, Supreme Court justices, statesmen and captains of industry - and often their sons, and lately their daughters, too.

      It’s a social and political network like no other. And they`ve responded to outsiders with utter silence – until an enterprising Yale graduate, Alexandra Robbins, managed to penetrate the wall of silence in her book, “Secrets of the Tomb.” Correspondent Morley Safer reports.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      ”I spoke with about 100 members of Skull and Bones and they were members who were tired of the secrecy, and that`s why they were willing to talk to me,” says Robbins. “But probably twice that number hung up on me, harassed me, or threatened me.”

      Secret or not, Skull and Bones is as essential to Yale as the Whiffenpoofs, the tables down at a pub called Mory`s, and the Yale mascot - that ever-slobbering bulldog.

      Skull and Bones, with all its ritual and macabre relics, was founded in 1832 as a new world version of secret student societies that were common in Germany at the time. Since then, it has chosen or "tapped" only 15 senior students a year who become patriarchs when they graduate -- lifetime members of the ultimate old boys` club.

      “Skull and Bones is so tiny. That`s what makes this staggering,” says Robbins. “There are only 15 people a year, which means there are about 800 living members at any one time.”

      But a lot of Bonesmen have gone on to positions of great power, which Robbins says is the main purpose of this secret society: to get as many members as possible into positions of power.

      “They do have many individuals in influential positions,” says Robbins. “And that`s why this is something that we need to know about.”

      President Bush has tapped five fellow Bonesmen to join his administration. Most recently, he selected William Donaldson, Skull and Bones 1953, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Like the President, he`s taken the Bones oath of silence.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Ron Rosenbaum, author and columnist for the New York Observer, has become obsessed with cracking that code of secrecy.

      “I think there is a deep and legitimate distrust in America for power and privilege that are cloaked in secrecy. It`s not supposed to be the way we do things,” says Rosenbaum. “We`re supposed to do things out in the open in America. And so that any society or institution that hints that there is something hidden is, I think, a legitimate subject for investigation.”

      His investigation is a 30-year obsession dating back to his days as a Yale classmate of George W. Bush. Rosenbaum, a self-described undergraduate nerd, was certainly not a contender for Bones. But he was fascinated by its weirdness.

      “It`s this sepulchral, tomblike, windowless, granite, sandstone bulk that you can`t miss. And I lived next to it,” says Rosenbaum. “I had passed it all the time. And during the initiation rites, you could hear strange cries and whispers coming from the Skull and Bones tomb.”

      Despite a lifetime of attempts to get inside, the best Rosenbaum could do was hide out on the ledge of a nearby building a few years ago to videotape a nocturnal initiation ceremony in the Tomb`s courtyard.

      “A woman holds a knife and pretends to slash the throat of another person lying down before them, and there`s screaming and yelling at the neophytes,” he says.

      Robbins says the cast of the initiation ritual is right out of Harry Potter meets Dracula: “There is a devil, a Don Quixote and a Pope who has one foot sheathed in a white monogrammed slipper resting on a stone skull. The initiates are led into the room one at a time. And once an initiate is inside, the Bonesmen shriek at him. Finally, the Bonesman is shoved to his knees in front of Don Quixote as the shrieking crowd falls silent. And Don Quixote lifts his sword and taps the Bonesman on his left shoulder and says, ‘By order of our order, I dub thee knight of Euloga.’"

      It’s a lot of mumbo-jumbo, says Robbins, but it means a lot to the people who are in it.

      “Prescott Bush, George W`s grandfather, and a band of Bonesmen, robbed the grave of Geronimo, took the skull and some personal relics of the Apache Chief and brought them back to the tomb,” says Robbins. “There is still a glass case, Bonesmen tell me, within the tomb that displays a skull that they all refer to as Geronimo.”

      “The preoccupation with bones, mortality, with coffins, lying in coffins, standing around coffins, all this sort of thing I think is designed to give them the sense that, and it`s very true, life is short,” says Rosenbaum. “You can spend it, if you have a privileged background, enjoying yourself, contributing nothing, or you can spend it making a contribution.”

      And plenty of Bonesmen have made a contribution, from William Howard Taft, the 27th President; Henry Luce, the founder of Time Magazine; and W. Averell Harriman, the diplomat and confidant of U.S. presidents.

      “What`s important about the undergraduate years of Skull and Bones, as opposed to fraternities, is that it imbues them with a kind of mission for moral leadership,” says Rosenbaum. “And it`s something that they may ignore for 30 years of their life, as George W. Bush seemed to successfully ignore it for quite a long time. But he came back to it.”

      Mr. Bush, like his father and grandfather before him, has refused to talk openly about Skull and Bones. But as a Bonesman, he was required to reveal his innermost secrets to his fellow Bones initiates.

      “They`re supposed to recount their entire sexual histories in sort of a dim, a dimly-lit cozy room. The other 14 members are sitting on plush couches, and the lights are dimmed,” says Robbins. “And there`s a fire roaring. And the, this activity is supposed to last anywhere from between one to three hours.”
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      What’s the point of this?

      ”I believe the point of the year in the tomb is to forge such a strong bond between these 15 new members that after they graduate, for them to betray Skull and Bones would mean they`d have to betray their fourteen closest friends,” says Robbins.

      One can`t help but make certain comparisons with the mafia, for example. Secret society, bonding, stakes may be a little higher in one than the other. But everybody knows everything about everybody, which is a form of protection.

      “I think Skull and Bones has had slightly more success than the mafia in the sense that the leaders of the five families are all doing 100 years in jail, and the leaders of the Skull and Bones families are doing four and eight years in the White House,” says Rosenbaum.

      Bones is not restricted to the Republican Party. Yet another Bonesman has his eye on the Oval Office: Senator John Kerry, Democrat, Skull & Bones 1966.

      “It is fascinating isn`t it? I mean, again, all the people say, ‘Oh, these societies don`t matter. The Eastern Establishment is in decline.’ And you could not find two more quintessential Eastern establishment, privileged guys,” says Rosenbaum. “I remember when I was a nerdy scholarship student in the reserve book room at, at the Yale Library, and John Kerry, who at that point styled himself ‘John F. Kerry’ would walk in.”

      “There was always a little buzz,” adds Rosenbaum. “Because even then he was seen to be destined for higher things. He was head of the Yale Political Union, and a tap for Skull and Bones was seen as the natural sequel to that.”
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      David Brooks, a conservative commentator who has published a book on the social dynamics of the upwardly mobile, says that while Skull & Bones may be elite and secret, it`s anything but exciting.

      “My view of secret societies is they`re like the first class cabin in airplanes. They`re really impressive until you get into them, and then once you`re there they`re a little dull. So you hear all these conspiracy theories about Skull and Bones,” says Brooks.

      “And to me, to be in one of these organizations, you have to have an incredibly high tolerance for tedium `cause you`re sittin` around talking, talking, and talking. You`re not running the world, you`re just gassing.”

      Gassing or not, the best-connected white man`s club in America has moved reluctantly into the 21st Century.

      “Skull and Bones narrowly endorsed admitting women,” says Robbins. “The day before these women were supposed to be initiated, a group of Bonesmen, including William F. Buckley, obtained a court order to block the initiation claiming that letting women into the tomb would lead to date rape. Again more legal wrangling; finally it came down to another vote and women were admitted and initiated.”

      But Skull & Bones now has women, and it’s become more multicultural.

      “It has gays who got the SAT scores, it`s got the gays who got the straight A`s,” says Brooks. “It`s got the blacks who are the president of the right associations. It`s different criteria. More multicultural, but it`s still an elite, selective institution.”

      On balance, it may be bizarre, but on a certain perspective, does it provide something of value?

      “You take these young strivers, you put them in this weird castle. They spill their guts with each other, fine. But they learn something beyond themselves. They learn a commitment to each other, they learn a commitment to the community,” says Brooks. “And maybe they inherit some of those old ideals of public service that are missing in a lot of other parts of the country.”

      And is that relationship, in some cases, stronger that family or faith?

      “Absolutely,” says Robbins. “You know, they say, they say the motto at Yale is, ‘For God, for country, and for Yale.’ At Bones, I would think it`s ‘For Bones.`”

      © MMIII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.12.03 22:20:58
      Beitrag Nr. 10.390 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 00:15:22
      Beitrag Nr. 10.391 ()
      Advance Praise for ‘An End to Evil’

      by Karen Kwiatkowski


      Why are we occupying Iraq, bombing the living hell out of Afghanistan, pestering Iran and Syria, genuflecting to Sharon, failing to deal with real threats to our nation while piddling away our resources building an empire nobody wants? How are our grandchildren going to pay for the unrestrained stupidity roaring out of the White House? How can we truly employ constitutional restrictions on centralized federal power? How do we stop the scourge of neo-Jacobinism in America?

      A new book just released by Random House contains the answers to these questions and more. It is written by some of the most knowledgeable, wise and influential men in Washington today. The authors have taken valuable time from their days of thinking up phrases like "Axis of Evil" (Iran-Syria-Iraq-no-wait-not-Syria-need-a-non-Islamic-country-what-about-North-Korea) and shaping the oh-so-malleable minds of literally hundreds of National Review readers.

      David Frum and Richard Perle have saved us all loads of time. We wanted real solutions for American’s foreign and domestic future, and by golly, they have delivered. I announce to you An End to Evil: Strategies for Victory in the War on Terror!

      The Frumster and Richer Perle have produced a book that finally reveals "their blueprint for what could become the Bush administration’s agenda in the war on terrorism." My dear, dear boys! Are you saying that in a fit of electoral excitement, young Dubya has already begun to diverge from your neo-Jacobin empire mongering? Is he beginning to exhibit a certain lack of concentration on cementing the White House-Likud Alliance? I mean, who could have predicted that in an election year?

      The book jacket says Frum and Perle have provided a few simple steps to make neo-conservatives, or as my friend Ray McGovern calls them, neo-fascists, very, very happy. And what’s not to like about that?

      To make a neo-fascist happy, we need only:

      Support the overthrow of the terrorist mullahs of Iran.
      End the terrorist regime of Syria.
      Regard Saudi Arabia and France not as friends but as rivals – maybe enemies.
      Withdraw support from the United Nations if it does not reform.
      Tighten immigration and security at home.
      Radically reorganize the CIA and the FBI.
      Squeeze China, and blockade North Korea to press that member of the axis of evil to abandon its nuclear program.
      Abandon the illusion that a Palestinian state will contribute in any important way to U.S. security.
      These little Perles of inanity, these fluffy Frumpisms deserve a closer look. They tell us an enormous amount about misguided American empire and the neo-fascist state we are growing for ourselves like a new Audrey in our little shop of horrors. Feed me, Seymour!

      Perhaps the subtitle for the book should have been not "Strategies for Victory" but "Little Shop of Horrors." In case you missed the play and the movie, the story is about a gentle but not very forward-thinking flower-shop attendant named Seymour Krelbourn, and his innocent nurture of a plant that thrives on human blood. Seymour feeds it when it is little, and like the neo-fascist state we are building here at home and the benevolent empire abroad, it feeds on us when it gets bigger. The difference between the horror in the play and the horror growing in Washington is that the man-eating plant has real personality and is hilariously fun. Our budding 21st century experiment with fascism promises to be far less entertaining.


      But back to Frum and Perle’s enlightenment. The duo tells us to kill the enemy abroad ASAP, create new enemies just in case, and preemptively destroy the enemy at home. First, we eliminate (assassinate, invade, occupy directly or through puppetry) selected "terrorist" regimes, mainly in the Middle East and surrounds. No, silly, not Israel under Sharon or Uzbekistan! For more on this, check out An End of Evil companion piece, Mark Palmer’s rousing adventure tale of how America destroys the 43 (just 43?) evil dictators on the planet once and for all by the year 2025.

      Secondly, Frum and Perle advocate creating new enemies around the world. These naturally include the easy-to-hate House of Saud and France, as well as China and the rest of the world as represented by membership in the United Nations. One might assume that UN member countries and Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands will be exempt from eventual enemy status. Or not.

      Thirdly, Frum and Perle have advice for Americus domesticus as well. Speaking only for myself, I am hugely grateful for advice on how to run our country from a Canadian like Frum and a suspected agent of a foreign government like Perle. Their valuable counsel includes more centralized government interference in everyone’s lives, continued erosion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights through enlightened courts and the insatiable state, and special attention to encouraging oncological growth of the state security apparatus. The book jacket says Frum was the "most influential thinker in the foreign-policy apparatus of the Administration of George W. Bush" and Perle is "the intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy." Pay attention, people!

      Lastly, in case anyone missed it – world peace and security depends on the prevention of a Palestinian state. Period. In light of the hysterics evident in the promotional materials and the fact that I am already shaking in my boots, my advice is to simply submit to the whole shmiel. Ignore the illogic, suspend your disbelief, do what Perle and Frum say. Resistance is futile! You will adapt to service us.

      I hope this book review, written as no doubt many are by relying solely on the book jacket, has been helpful to you. On a serious note, there is a dangerous bit of utilitarian stasis that permeates both the Frum-Perle consummation and the drooling Mark Palmer fantasy. Apparently, the rest of the world conveniently stops while they spasmodically draw sterile and unimaginative stick figures upon a clean slate. This is the fallacy of the Jacobins, old and new. It is the tragedy of the fascists and the central planners. The authors may simply be confused about the nature of both history and human action as a result of their upbringing and education. Perhaps these books are a cry for help from people lacking typical American characteristics of physical and intellectual courage, and love of liberty.

      More likely, these books are opportunistic and desperate attempts to capitalize on the already seriously waning interest in neo-conservative prescriptions for America as despicable debt-funded empire. With predictable pedantry, they deliver not a blueprint for victory, but cheap lies and grotesque self-deception.

      December 11, 2003

      Karen Kwiatkowski [send her mail] is a recently retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon. She now lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley.

      Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com


      An End to Evil: Strategies For Victory in the War on Terror
      by David Frum (Author), Richard Perle (Author)
      About the Author
      David Frum, a former special assistant to President George W. Bush, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

      Richard Perle served as an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and as chairman of the Defense Policy Board under President George W. Bush. He is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 00:20:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.392 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 00:29:16
      Beitrag Nr. 10.393 ()



      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 00:51:31
      Beitrag Nr. 10.394 ()
      DERRICK Z. JACKSON
      US evades blame for Iraqi deaths
      By Derrick Z. Jackson, 12/12/2003

      WASHINGTON

      A SENIOR White House official was asked in a briefing this week if President Bush will ever directly address the Iraqi people about the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the US occupation. Instead of addressing Bush`s responsibility, the official delivered a spiraling rendition of denial.

      "Let`s remember who`s killing Iraqi citizens," the official said. "It`s not the coalition forces. Yes, there are occasional collateral damage deaths in all wars. But it wasn`t coalition forces that blew up the UN headquarters. It wasn`t coalition forces that tried to force out the Italians and the Japanese and the Koreans.

      "It wasn`t coalition forces that blew up Iraqi police stations. These are Iraqis killing Iraqis, and they`re the same Iraqis who have been killing Iraqis for 25 years under Saddam Hussein. . . . There will be some civilian deaths. It will be nothing like what Saddam Hussein did."

      That was all true. It also had nothing to do with the question. Let`s remember something else. The Associated Press reported back in June that at least 3,240 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first month of the American invasion. The AP reported that the "great majority of civilian deaths appear to have been caused by US or British attacks." The AP said its tally was "fragmentary" with the real figure probably "significantly" higher.

      In October, the Project on Defense Alternatives estimated the number of civilian deaths during the invasion to range between 3,200 and 4,300. Last month, Medact, the British wing of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, published a report that estimated between 5,708 and 7,356 civilians died during the invasion and an additional 2,049 to 2,209 have died in the occupation.

      For all the administration makes about the terrible attacks by Iraqi guerrillas against the occupation, there have been many examples of completely uncalled for killings of civilians, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Twice this month, six and nine children apiece were killed in bungled US raids in Afghanistan. In Iraq there have been constant instances of innocent people being shot dead by trigger-happy US soldiers, including the most recent incident in Samarra. The Pentagon bragged about killing 54 Iraqi guerrillas. But local hospital officials counted eight people killed and 54 wounded, mostly, if not all, civilians.

      We continue to make a great deal about the deaths of 3,000 innocents in this country on Sept. 11, 2001. But our avenging war on terrorism has now turned into a terrorist attack of its own, killing perhaps three times more innocent civilians. USA Today reported this week that cluster bombs dropped during the invasion killed untold numbers of Iraqi civilians. Unexploded cluster bombs are continuing to kill Iraqi civilians that stumble upon them, including children.

      On March 23, at the beginning of the war, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Richard Myers, responded to early reports that scores of civilians were killed by cluster bombs by saying: "The one thing you can be sure of from the Iraqi regime is that they`re masters at lying and distorting the truth. . . . we only target militarily significant targets. In the first couple of days, we used essentially 100 percent precision-guided munitions." On April 25, Myers said the United States and Britain dropped 1,500 cluster bombs on Iraq during the invasion. "There`s been only one recorded case of collateral damage from cluster munitions so far," Myers said.

      Of course there was only one recorded case -- the United States has never counted civilian deaths. Worse, USA Today found that the United States used 10,782 cluster weapons, not just 1,500.

      The attempts by the White House to deny the blood on its own hands continued this week with the announcement by the Iraqi Health Ministry that it will no longer count civilian casualties. The head of the ministry`s statistics department, Dr. Nagham Moshen, told the Associated Press that the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority has pressured Health Minister Dr. Khodeir Abbas to stop. "We have stopped the collection of this information because our minister didn`t agree with it. The CPA doesn`t want this to be done," Moshen said.

      Abbas, through his secretary, denied the charge. But Abbas had previously said it would be "almost impossible" to do a serious study. Moshen said the ministry`s director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, told her, "You should move far away from this subject." Moshen said that there are enough hospital reports available to produce a credible study. "I could do it if the CPA and our minister agree that I can," Moshen said.

      With a shutdown of Iraqi civilians counting Iraqi civilians, the denial would be complete. The senior White House official said, "Let`s remember who`s killing Iraqi citizens." The evidence is appallingly clear that the White House is really saying "Let`s forget."

      Derrick Z. Jackson`s e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.

      © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 10:09:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.395 ()
      Army shells pose cancer risk in Iraq
      Depleted uranium causing high radioactivity levels

      Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
      Sunday December 14, 2003
      The Observer

      Depleted uranium shells used by British forces in southern Iraqi battlefields are putting civilians at risk from `alarmingly high` levels of radioactivity.

      Experts are calling for the water and milk being used by locals in Basra to be monitored after analysis of biological and soil samples from battle zones found `the highest number, highest levels and highest concentrations of radioactive source points` in the Basra suburb of Abu Khasib - the centre of the fiercest battles between UK forces and Saddam loyalists.

      Readings taken from destroyed Iraqi tanks in Basra reveal radiation levels 2,500 times higher than normal. In the surrounding area researchers recorded radioactivity levels 20 times higher than normal.

      Critics of these controversial munitions - used to penetrate tank armour - believe inhaling the radioactive dust left by the highly combustible weapon causes cancer and birth defects. It has long been alleged that depleted uranium (DU) used in the first Gulf conflict was responsible for abnormally high levels of childhood leukaemia and birth defects in Iraq. Depleted uranium is also believed by some to be a contributing factor in Gulf War syndrome.

      The disclosure comes days after the charity Human Rights Watch claimed hundreds of `preventable` deaths of civilians have been caused by the use of cluster bombs by US and UK forces during the conflict. The latest research, based on a two-week field trip by scientists, was carried out by the Canadian-based Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) led by a former US military doctor Asaf Durakovic.

      Tedd Weymann, deputy director of UMRC, said: `At one point the readings were so high that an alarm on one of my instruments went off telling me to get back. Yet despite these alarmingly high levels of radiation children play on the tanks or close by.`

      The amount of DU used during the Iraq war has not been revealed, although some estimate it was more than a thousand tons. Last week, Labour MP Llew Smith obtained from the Ministry of Defence a list of 51 map co-ordinates in Iraq where sites were struck by DU weapons. France, Spain and Italy claim soldiers who served in Bosnia and Kosovo, where DU shells were used by Nato, have contracted cancers.

      Witnesses told the UMRC that a British Army survey team inspected Abu Khasib. `The UK team arrived dressed in white full-body radiation suits with protective facemasks and gloves. They were accompanied by translators who were ordered to warn residents and local salvage crews that the tanks in the battlefield are radioactive and must be avoided,` the report states, adding: `The British forces have taken no steps to post warnings, seal tanks and personnel carriers or remove the highly radioactive assets.`

      Dr Chris Busby, who is a member of a government committee examining radia tion risks, expressed concern. `There is no question that inhaling this radioactive dust can increase the risk of lymphomas,` he said.

      Professor Brian Spratt, who chaired a Royal Society working group on the hazards of DU, said: `British and US forces need to acknowledge that DU is a potential hazard and make inroads into tackling it by being open about where and how much has been deployed. Fragments of DU penetrators are potentially hazardous, and should be removed, and areas of contamination around impact sites identified. Impact sites in residential areas should be a particular priority. Long-term monitoring of water and milk to detect any increase in uranium levels should also be introduced in Iraq.`

      In a statement, the MoD said: `The allegations made by the UMRC are not substantiated by credible scientific evidence. They give no activity concentrations of the material concentrations on the ground or in the air, and their conclusions are not substantiated by readings taken by MoD`s own survey team... The MoD sent a small team of scientists to Iraq in June to perform a preliminary survey in order to identify issues... and provide safety advice to scientists in the field. This survey looked at a small number of locations where tanks had been defeated by DU and found limited contamination at localised points; the highest contamination was at the point of entry on a defeated tank and this was fixed to the metal and could not be rubbed off on the skin by touch, much less inhaled.

      `The UMRC appears to consider a small, highly localised area of contamination to present a large health risk. Use of "worst case" data to calculate risks to the population is inappropriate.`


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 10:23:52
      Beitrag Nr. 10.396 ()
      Guantanamo UK
      We damn the Americans for Guantanamo, yet we are doing exactly the same thing in south-east London

      Nick Cohen
      Sunday December 14, 2003
      The Observer

      Margaret Drabble spoke for much of the intelligentsia when she told the Daily Telegraph: `My anti-Americanism has become almost uncontrollable. It has possessed me like a disease.` So severe was the infection she was unable to look at anything American without retching. `I can`t keep it down any longer. I detest Disneyfication, I detest Coca-Cola, I detest burgers, I detest sentimental and violent Hollywood movies that tell lies about history. I detest American imperialism, American infantilism, and American triumphalism about victories it didn`t even win.`

      Worse than the Big Macs and the fizzy drinks was the indefinite detention `without charge or trial or access to lawyers` of the 600 or so inmates at Guantanamo Bay, `the Bastille of America`. It has turned the novelist into an activist who has vowed to keep writing to Jack Straw and his successors at the Foreign Office `until something happens`. She isn`t alone. From the Mail on the Right - Guantanamo `spits in the face of what most reasonable people in this country would regard as justice` - to the Mirror on the Left - `the treatment of prisoners defies decency and civilised convention` - the campaign against imprisonment without trial has united left-wing comedians with right-wing pundits, Law Lords with poets, bishops with actresses.

      It is not without its hypocrisies. If you want to find men indefinitely imprisoned without trial, you don`t have to go to Cuba. You can get them at home. Yet the internment of Arab terrorist suspects in Britain has passed largely unnoticed. There are no outraged playwrights or demands in Parliament to defend the basic principles of British justice. Civil liberties groups try periodically to make internment a cause célèbre, but find few takers. On the one hand, public pressure has forced New Labour to lobby Washington to give the British inmates in Guantanamo Bay a fair trial. On the other, public indifference has given it free rein to intern foreigners in Britain without a fair trial.

      Centuries of experience have taught the British how to suspend the rule of law without an embarrassing fuss. They know that these matters must be handled with delicacy, and that the clumsy spectacles of the meretricious Yanks must be avoided. Britain hasn`t made the mistake of providing electrifying footage. Belmarsh Prison in south-east London, where most of the detainees are held, is as drab as Guantanamo is exotic. There aren`t pictures of the British detainees in fluorescent jump suits being frogmarched in manacles. Amnesty International, which brought out a report last week to mark the second anniversary of the detention, points out that the 14 internees are held in small cells for 22 hours a day. Hardly anyone sees them, let alone photographs them. Their lawyers have got court orders stopping the press identifying most of the 14 on the grounds that their families would be identified as the families of `terrorists` when no one has been convicted of terrorism before a properly constituted court. The prohibition seems compassionate, but it hobbles the media. We need names and, above all, pictures to make a story work. That there are only 14 detainees is a further reason for the silence, but there may also be a discreditable emotion at work.

      It`s easy to slag off Bush; in many circles it`s social death to do anything else. It`s easy, too, to demand justice on the other side of the world. It`s harder to demand that the prison doors open in Woolwich to let out men the Government swears have links to al-Qaeda. A cowardly voice whispers: `What if they`re right? What if they know they`re al-Qaeda and just can`t cut through the legal red tape? What if we win, and they`re freed to pull off the big one - not in New York or Istanbul but here in Britain? We`ll have blood on our hands, maybe our blood. Better and safer to shut up and concentrate on the ghastly Americans.`

      Working out whether the Government has got it right is difficult. By suspending trial by jury, the Home Office has made it impossible to be certain. The 14 aren`t prisoners of war. They`re foreign nationals who would ordinarily be deported but can`t be thrown out because they might face torture or execution back home. Oddly, the Government says if they can find a safe country they`re free to leave, and two have done so. If these men are members of an international terrorist network that plans attacks all over the world, why are they being allowed to go? Why let `suspected international terrorists` take their local knowledge of Britain overseas and pass it to others? The loophole suggests that most of the internees are either small fry or no fry.

      The evidence against them has only been given in outline in public. Neither they nor their lawyers are allowed to hear the detail. At the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which has usurped the place of the courts, both suspects and briefs have to leave the room when the basis for internment is discussed. Government-appointed defence lawyers, who haven`t taken instructions from the suspects, move in. They can`t check the accuracy of the `charges` with the `accused` because they would be endangering national security by revealing confidential information. They are working in the dark. As always when the proper forms of law are suspended, a tottering and bizarrely complicated structure has to be erected to take their place.

      The detainees fall into two groups: Abu Qatada and the rest. Qatada is without doubt a figure of global importance in the Islamic death cults. He found asylum in Britain after being sentenced to death in Jordan for his alleged role in bomb attacks. He is an inspiration who provides spiritual sanction for war. His sermons attract the foulest people. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is meant to have listened to them. Mohamed Atta and two others who hijacked planes on 11 September had 18 videos in their Hamburg flat of Qatada preaching. One sticks in the mind. In 1995, he told Islamic fanatics in Algeria that it was legitimate to make threats against `the wives and children of the apostates [that is, the families of the servants of the ruthless Algerian government] in order to stop the oppression of women prisoners and brothers`.

      Many of the claims against him are undoubtedly true, and all of them may be true. But if they are, there should be no difficulty in charging him in open court under the sweeping 2000 Terrorism Act. It made the most trivial assistance to a banned organisation a criminal offence.

      Qatada says that he isn`t a supporter of terrorism and has merely given religious authority to the right to resist oppression. It`s impossible to be certain, but this line of defence probably explains why the rule of law has been suspended in the remaining cases. In, say, Chechnya, there are both al-Qaeda fighters who would kill pretty much anyone pretty much anywhere on the planet and Chechens engaged in a recognisable war of national liberation. Telling them apart is hard, and the other 13 men could argue that they were doing no more than passing money to Chechens fighting a legitimate war rather than bank-rolling international terrorism. It`s a fine distinction, but I can think of no other way of making it than by testing the evidence in open court.

      The nature of that evidence is the second reason for the secret hearings. Just how dubious it can be came out in one of the few public sessions. A secret serviceman who could only be identified as Witness A was asked whether information extracted under torture could be used in Britain. He said that it could. If a tortured suspect broke under interrogation in one of the Gulf States and implicated a man living in London as co-conspirator, MI5 would have to assess the confession. If it thought it was `reliable` it would tell the Home Secretary to pack the man off to Belmarsh. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission had no problem with forced confessions. `It may well appear that to admit such evidence would result in unfairness,` it ruled. `But it does not in our view justify the conclusion that information obtained by a third party [by the use of torture] is inadmissible.`

      I`m sorry if I sound hyperbolic, but this is extraordinary. For the first time in centuries evidence collected under torture - albeit the torture of a witness in a foreign country - can be used to imprison suspects in Britain without trial. An awful lot of ground is being given up without much of a fight.

      As I said earlier, it`s far harder to fight than to make the near-mandatory denunciations of the Americans. Belmarsh is our Guantanamo, and if groups like Amnesty were to succeed in freeing its internees, there may be a price. In the end, you have to decide if you believe in the presumption of innocence and the rule of law or not. Whether you are serious or just striking a pose.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 10:25:01
      Beitrag Nr. 10.397 ()
      Car bomb kills 16 at Iraqi police station
      AP
      14 December 2003


      A car bomb exploded at a police station in Khandiyah, west of Baghdad, today killing at least 16 people and injuring more than 30, Iraqi police said.



      An emergency room administrator at a hospital in the nearby city of Ramadi said there were 18 people killed in the blast and more than 20 injured.



      Many of the victims were police officers, said the hospital administrator, Haitham Bahar Taha.



      US troops called to the scene immediately closed off the area and two helicopters were seen hovering overhead.



      Khaldiyah is in the so-called Sunni Triangle west and north of the capital, where attacks against occupation troops and their Iraqi allies have been fiercest.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 10:36:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10.398 ()

      The northern Iraqi oil fields at Kirkuk, operating with technology from the 1970`s, are unable to maintain a high production of crude oil without replacement parts and technical assistance from outside the country.
      December 14, 2003
      THE RECONSTRUCTION
      Saboteurs, Looters and Old Equipment Work Against Efforts to Restart Iraqi Oil Fields
      By EDWARD WONG

      BAYJI, Iraq — Hussain Khalaf Tuma`s mood was as foul as the smoke belching from the oil refinery a mile away.

      Cradling an AK-47 and dressed in a ragged leather coat, he crouched on a patch of dirt by a flimsy cloth lean-to, guarding an unseen pipeline that runs underground for 150 miles from here to Baghdad. A handful of men from his tribe, the Qaissy, took turns standing watch around the clock. They slept between shifts on two narrow metal cots. In the summer, he said, the desert heat is unbearable. In the winter, the rain soaks right through the tent.

      To put up with all this, Mr. Tuma said, he was being paid the equivalent of $2 a day.

      "If this salary stays the same, I don`t think I and the others will hang around to protect this pipeline," he said. "We can go elsewhere and get better work. Just imagine yourself here, sleeping in the wintertime, how cold it is these days. And you have seven children at home, and you`re not sure if they`ve been fed. What would you do?"

      Tribesmen like Mr. Tuma are on the front lines of one of the nation`s most important battles: the effort to get the Iraqi oil industry running smoothly again.

      Nothing is more vital for bolstering the economic health of Iraq and the sagging confidence of its people than oil. But since the American-led forces invaded Iraq, pipelines have been under constant attack by anti-American guerrillas and looters, cutting exports of crude oil and creating maddening supply shortages in a country with the world`s second largest oil reserves.

      With lines for gasoline stretching for miles and drivers forced to wait all day to fill their tanks, fuel shortages have emerged as a potent political issue with the potential to ignite civil unrest across the country.

      Two American soldiers were killed recently while standing guard over long lines at gas stations, and many Iraqis warn that the kind of widespread rioting that broke out in August in the city of Basra may be just around the corner.

      Sabotage and looting are not the only obstacles hampering the production and refining of crucial petroleum products for domestic use. Frequent power disturbances have shut down refineries for days at a time.

      The refinery here in Bayji, the country`s largest, is operating with technology from the 1970`s and desperately needs new parts and technical aid from outside Iraq. Kellogg, Brown & Root, the unit of Halliburton paid by the American government to repair the oil infrastructure, has done nothing to help, Iraqi refinery managers said, adding that only two Eastern European countries have sent engineers.

      A spokeswoman for Halliburton said that the refinery was not damaged by the war and so was not a high priority for repairs, and that managers could not expect to get all the equipment and technical help they needed immediately.

      At the rich oil fields around Kirkuk, 60 miles to the northeast, exports of crude oil have been brought to a halt for some of the same reasons plaguing the refineries. To maintain high production, the oil company that runs the fields needs to replace spare parts that were looted after the invasion, said Manaa A. al-Obaydi, the deputy general manager for the company, North Oil.

      Meanwhile, attacks continue on the main export pipeline, which runs 300 miles from Kirkuk through Bayji to the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

      "We can start up production for export, but we want to guarantee safety," said Asim Jihad, an Oil Ministry spokesman. "We want to guarantee protection. Whenever protection is ready, we will start production."

      The Kirkuk fields can pump up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day for export, worth about $7.2 billion a year. The American-led government is currently relying on more secure fields around Basra for all the nation`s exports and most of the overall production but wants to bring total production up to 2.8 million barrels a day by April, from 2.1 million a day in November. That means the Oil Ministry must get the northern fields working properly again.

      Mr. Obaydi said the Kirkuk fields currently produce 230,000 barrels a day for refineries, which then process the crude oil into products like gasoline, kerosene and diesel fuel, all for use in Iraq. But the major pipelines running south from the refinery in Bayji and from Kirkuk go through Sunni regions that are strongholds for guerrillas battling the foreign occupation.

      Last Sunday, along the 50-odd-mile stretch of road from here to Kirkuk, two men were scrawling a sign that read: "Long live Saddam Hussein. Death to the traitors."

      Hashim Abdul Ghafour Shakir, deputy director of the government-run Oil Pipelines Company, which manages 4,200 miles of pipelines, estimated that there was an average of one attack per day by guerrillas or looters on the pipelines between here and Baghdad. On Tuesday, saboteurs damaged three pipelines, including one to Bayji.

      The pipelines, just a few feet underground, make easy targets. A broken oil pipeline usually takes one to four days to repair, Mr. Shakir said, while one carrying liquid propane gas can take up to three weeks because the entire pipeline first has to be drained.

      Under Mr. Hussein`s rule, police officers patrolled the lines, scaring off looters. But the American-led forces "were very slow to stop the looters, and maybe soft with them," Mr. Shakir said. Over the summer, Oil Pipelines and other pipeline management companies hired local tribes like the Qaissy for security.

      But there are questions about the degree to which certain tribes — especially those in the Sunni areas — honor their contracts. As the weary Mr. Tuma demonstrated here, wages — and thus morale — can be low. That leaves the guards open to bribery in a country where the practice was the norm under Mr. Hussein`s government.

      "Are we permanent guards here or temporary guards?" said Mr. Tuma, who was hired three months ago by a Qaissy leader. "If I`m only temporary, I don`t care as much about this place."

      Mr. Shakir said the tribes were responsible for setting the guards` pay, and that Mr. Tuma`s salary of $63 a month seemed reasonable. Tribes failing to protect their assigned section of pipeline, he added, will be brought to court and fined.

      But Mr. Shakir also acknowledged that the lines` enormous lengths made them difficult to protect. "Sure, they need some backup or support," he said. He suggested that the United States Army run helicopter patrols.

      Maj. Josslyn Aberle, a spokeswoman for the Fourth Infantry Division, which operates in northern Iraq, said American soldiers no longer had any responsibility for protecting the pipelines, though they might respond to explosions.

      Even if the attacks and looting were to stop, the refineries and surrounding power grids would still need serious overhauls before production could be increased. The refinery here at Bayji can process 300,000 barrels of crude oil a day but is operating nowhere near that capacity, said Riyadh Ghassab, the director general.

      The slightest flicker in the power supply shuts it down, and once that happens it takes days to get it running again. Its three plants were built in the 1980`s with technology from the previous decade, all of it frozen in time when the United Nations imposed sanctions after the Persian Gulf war of 1991.

      Several companies from Europe and one from Japan helped build the refinery, but only companies from the Czech Republic and Slovakia have sent engineers to help with upgrades, Mr. Ghassab said. Because of security concerns, the Japanese company has been reluctant to send help, he added. He and other managers have been meeting daily with workers from Kellogg, Brown & Root, but the Iraqis have received nothing more than empty promises, Mr. Ghassab said.

      "They have consumed a lot of tea here," he said. "A lot of tea and paper, because all we get is paperwork from them."

      Patrice Mingo, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said Kellogg, Brown & Root was under contract to repair oil infrastructure that "sustained war damage" or was "critical to stabilizing the domestic needs of Iraq." The Bayji refinery was not directly damaged by the war, Ms. Mingo said, and the available financing and number of repairs needed at plants across the country have made it hard to immediately meet the needs of all the managers.

      A mile away from the refinery, Mr. Tuma walked from his tent and took a sip of water from a dirt-encrusted plastic bowl. He and a 17-year-old Qaissy tribesman, Ali Hussain, stared at flames spitting from the refinery`s chimneys. A chill wind swept across the desert; the long night was about to descend.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company


      U.S. soldiers guard a gas station to enforce rationing, With lines for gasoline stretching for miles and drivers forced to wait all day to fill their tanks, fuel shortages have emerged as a potent political issue with the potential to ignite civil unrest across the country
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 10:42:12
      Beitrag Nr. 10.399 ()
      December 14, 2003
      TODAY`S EDITORIALS
      Captain Yee`s Ordeal

      The military`s mean-spirited and incompetent prosecution of Capt. James Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo Bay, illustrates the danger of allowing the war on terrorism to trump basic rights. After holding Captain Yee in solitary confinement for nearly three months, and smearing him with adultery and pornography charges, the military is now uncertain whether the documents whose confidentiality he is charged with breaching were even confidential. In the interest of justice, and of resurrecting their own reputation, military prosecutors should drop the case.

      The charges against Captain Yee, who was arrested in September, have always been murky. The military seems to have suspected him of being part of a plot to infiltrate Guantánamo, and to have been concerned about contacts between him and two other military men it was keeping under watch. But rather than bring serious conspiracy charges, the military merely accused Captain Yee of taking home, and improperly transporting, classified material. Military officials have been unforthcoming about the nature of the material, but at least some, and perhaps all of it appears to be documents, such as maps of the camp and lists of prisoners who have been interrogated, that a chaplain might have for job-related reasons.

      Rather than put the questions about the charges to rest right away, the military led off its case against Captain Yee last week with evidence he had an affair with a female officer, testimony that his wife and child had to listen to as they sat in court. It has also accused him of keeping pornography on a government computer. These charges in no way suggest that he was a security threat, and they are the kind the military generally does not bother to bring. They seem to be motivated, in this case, by a desire to embarrass Captain Yee, and by frustration that the larger case against him is so weak.

      The proceedings quickly broke down when it became clear that the military had not even determined that the documents found in Captain Yee`s possession were confidential. It is inexcusable that Captain Yee was dragged through the mud, and imprisoned for more than 70 days, before this basic determination was made. The 120 days for acting against Captain Yee, which started at his Sept. 10 arrest, are about to run out, and the military is seeking additional time. But given its poor handling of the case, there is no reason to drag it out any further.

      It is already clear how much harm the military`s misguided prosecution has done to Captain Yee and his family. What is less obvious, but no less real, is the threat this sort of prosecutorial mentality poses to all Americans. The specter of terrorism cannot become an excuse for the government to railroad people first, and ask questions later.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 10:47:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10.400 ()
      December 14, 2003
      OP-ED COLUMNIST
      Hearts and Minds
      By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

      ISTANBUL

      There was a special event last Tuesday at the Kennedy Center in Washington: the Iraqi National Symphony Orchestra, direct from Baghdad, played together with the National Symphony Orchestra of Washington, with an Iraqi and an American taking turns conducting. For one brief, shining moment, Iraqis and Americans really played the music of hope together.

      If only life could imitate art.

      If only the Bush team could orchestrate all the players involved in rebuilding Iraq, the way the maestro, Leonard Slatkin, conducted these combined orchestras, we might get a decent outcome in Baghdad.

      But I worry. Friends, we have a hearts-and-minds problem with Iraq: we`ve given them our hearts, and we`ve lost our minds. Our intentions are good in terms of what we wish for Iraq. But it is possible to do a good thing really badly. Yes, nation-building is always a messy enterprise, especially in a complex place like Iraq. As the saying goes, never watch sausage being made. But what about sausage being mismade? Now that is really ugly.

      What prompts these thoughts is a series of conversations over the past month with a variety of officials involved in Iraq policy making — both Iraqis and Americans. Everyone agrees that the goal is some kind of democratic Iraq, but I have yet to come away from any of these conversations with a clear sense of how we are going to get from here to there, or even who exactly is the overall conductor of this diplomatic, financial and military symphony. I keep meeting with people, expecting to hear "The Plan," but I never quite hear it.

      What I hear a lot of, though, are horror stories of Pentagon and White House red tape for anyone who wants to go to Baghdad to work in our mission there; continued guerrilla warfare between the State Department and the Pentagon and between the C.I.A. and the Pentagon, which borders on one quietly hoping for the other to fail; and a shocking lack of continuity in the U.S. team in Baghdad. I hear the U.S. civilians in Baghdad complaining that we need more troops and security — if we are going to set up a legitimate Iraqi political authority — and I hear the U.S. military complaining that the key to better security is setting up a legitimate Iraqi political authority, so Iraqis will know who and what they`re fighting for. Local U.S. commanders in Iraq are running dangerously low of walking-around money to buy friends, and we`ve even managed to start a fight with Qatar (over news broadcasts), where we have our regional military headquarters.

      I just arrived in Istanbul and a Turkish friend, Soli Ozel, an international relations professor, remarked to me that the U.S. had so badly mangled the postwar honeymoon in Iraq, even Turkish conspiracy theorists were baffled: "People simply can`t believe that with all your human and financial capital you didn`t think about the day after."

      It`s understandable that the Bush team wouldn`t rush to give reconstruction contracts to France, Germany and Russia, but why shove that in their faces while we`re asking them to forgive Iraq`s debts? Why not just tell them the more they find ways to help us, the more we`ll cut them a slice of rebuilding projects? It`s fine to have a president who is a chairman of the board, above the process, setting the broad guidelines — if you have an administration that is unified within itself and with its key allies. But I fear we have a president who is setting the broad guidelines, above a squabbling bureaucracy and a divided alliance — and no one is cracking heads. You can`t succeed in a place as difficult as Iraq without a workable plan to produce a broad-based government and without a unified team at home and abroad to execute it.

      This is not pessimism. It`s realism. Iraq is full of surprises, and some will be good. But my gut tells me we still don`t have our act together. We`ve got the good heart thing down, but that`s not enough. We must do better.

      What prompts this outburst? It was a picture on Thursday`s front page of this paper of a U.S. soldier being hugged by his young kids as he left for Iraq, just before Christmas. That picture left a real lump in my throat. It prompted me to ask myself whether, given everything I knew, I could tell that soldier`s kids that their government was doing everything it could to make sure their dad comes home both safe and successful. I could not tell his kids that right now — and that really bothers me.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 10:50:15
      Beitrag Nr. 10.401 ()
      December 14, 2003
      FRANK RICH
      Christmas Will Be Bloody This Year

      The "Top Gun" image of George W. Bush`s victory landing on an aircraft carrier has been officially recalled. Since the mission was not accomplished after all, we were given a replacement tableau of the president bestowing Thanksgiving grub on troops stuck in a long, hard slog.

      But Tom Cruise, whose Reagan-era movie was the inspiration for Mr. Bush`s flyboy stunt, has been busy, too, retooling his own image. His latest, in "The Last Samurai," is also in line with our changing national circumstances. The star plays a Civil War veteran so disillusioned with his country that he joins a band of samurai terrorists to fight a coalition of American interests and the Japanese Imperial Army in the 1870`s. Transpose "The Last Samurai" to the present, and it is the story of an American veteran who is recruited by DynCorp to train the Iraqi police or by Halliburton to service Iraq`s American troops and then bolts to the insurgents, if not Al Qaeda. "The Last Samurai" was America`s No. 1 box-office movie last weekend.

      Mr. Cruise`s vehicle is only one of four war movies slugging it out in the Christmas rush. It joins "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," the coming "Cold Mountain" and "The Return of the King," this week`s much-awaited conclusion to "The Lord of the Rings." Hollywood`s post-9/11 worry that audiences would shy away from war entertainment at a time of war is now as forgotten as the death of irony. These movies — most initiated pre-9/11 but all completed thereafter — have not only been awarded pride of place in the movie industry`s most important season but have also been pumped up with the steroids of big budgets and excessive length that signal Oscar-worthy Epics. Their total cost is roughly a half-billion dollars, their total running time nearly 11 hours.

      All that`s missing is a remake of "The Alamo" — and that, too, had initially been promised for Christmas, until Disney abruptly announced a postponement. "The Alamo" was explicitly intended to "capture the post-Sept. 11 surge in patriotism," said Michael Eisner back at its inception. Maybe the studio decided it would be financially prudent to delay until there`s another surge. Anxiety has replaced cockiness as the dominant national take on our postwar war in Iraq. Intentionally or not, three of the four new Christmas war movies play on our current fears rather than reprise the slam-dunk triumphalism of "Top Gun." And they do so even though most of them are top-heavy with creative talent (actors, directors, screenwriters) who hail from countries in the coalition of the willing (England, Australia, Japan, even Romania).

      The only unambiguously gung-ho war movie of the bunch is "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," which went so far as to patriotically reorient the plot of the Patrick O`Brian novel that gives it its title: what was once a story about a Royal Navy frigate battling an American ship in the war of 1812 now pits the British against our favorite weasels, the French, in 1805. Despite Russell Crowe, the movie has done only half the business of "Elf." That may be attributable to its frail narrative pulse, but it may also be because of an American audience`s changing view of war.

      One of the film`s (and the war in Iraq`s) loudest boosters, the columnist Charles Krauthammer, had hoped that "Master and Commander" would rally hawkish audiences back to the fold when it opened last month. "Its depiction of the more ancient notions of duty, honor, patriotism and devotion is reminiscent of what we glimpsed during live coverage of the dash to Baghdad back in April but is now slipping from memory," he wrote. But that memory continues to slip. (Mr. Krauthammer had previously signed on as a consultant to another jingoistic post-9/11 war movie, Showtime`s "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis," produced by a Bush campaign contributor; it also arrived too late for its "Top Gun" moment and tanked.)

      In the three other new Christmas war movies, there are duty, honor and patriotism but not slavish devotion to leaders who bungle their missions or corrupt their ideals. Such is the moral position of Nathan Algren, played by Mr. Cruise in "The Last Samurai." Algren fought in the Indian wars but now dismisses General Custer as an arrogant murderer "who fell in love with his own legend" and didn`t understand "the natives." Nathan sides with the natives in Japan, prompting his decision to turn his back on his employers and enlist with the samurai guerillas. And yet "The Last Samurai" presents its deserter as a hero, not a traitor. He is Tom Cruise, for heaven`s sake, not Christopher Walken, and he gets the (native) girl in the end, too.

      "Cold Mountain," Anthony Minghella`s adaptation of Charles Frazier`s best-selling Civil War novel, is a romantic American take on Homer: "The Bridges of Madison County" refracted through The Odyssey. But there is nothing romantic about its take on war. The gore on screen in this movie, as well as in "Master and Commander" and "The Last Samurai," is far more explicit than anything broadcast to the American public from our actual war in Iraq, where the administration`s censorship and television`s self-censorship conspire to sanitize the bloodshed as much as possible. That a 2003 American audience can revel in the disembowelments of 19th-century warfare but must be spared the bloodshed of a present-day war, even when encased in coffins, is itself an index of the nation`s ambivalence about our continuing mission in Iraq.

      The hero of "Cold Mountain" is another American deserter, a Confederate soldier named Inman (Jude Law) who by 1864 has had enough of the carnage and laments "every fool sent off to fight with a flag and a lie." Eventually there are so many atrocities featuring so many top Hollywood character actors that Inman`s sheltered belle back home (Nicole Kidman) agrees: "There will be a reckoning when this war is over." So does her best buddy (Renée Zellweger), who castigates men who "call this war a cloud over the land" when "they made the weather." "Cold Mountain" is as angry as the Howard Dean campaign, albeit far prettier to look at. Should it prove hugely popular with American moviegoers (by no means a foregone conclusion), Karl Rove might well take notice.

      Part 3 of "Lord of the Rings" is a certain blockbuster, and not without reason. Even if you find the hobbits a bit twee and even if you wish this finale did not have as many codicils as a probate settlement, there`s no escaping the virtuoso gifts of the director, Peter Jackson. You almost have to pity Mr. Minghella and the directors of "The Last Samurai" (Ed Zwick) and "Master and Commander" (Peter Weir). Whatever their movies` other failings, they all have splendid battle scenes — until set against the breathtaking visual arsenal of "Lord of the Rings."

      But Mr. Jackson`s trilogy has more going for it than its spectacle and many classical allusions (a commonplace in all these films, which all have some version of a St. Crispin`s Day oration on the eve of battle). J. R. R. Tolkien, who started writing his saga on the eve of World War II and himself served in World War I, was a sworn enemy of allegorical readings of his "Ring," but such interpretations have always attended it. The pure totalitarian evil of Sauron is hard to disassociate from Tolkien`s early and vocal antipathy toward Hitler. "Frodo Lives" buttons would eventually become ubiquitous in the antiwar 60`s, when hobbits became proto-flower-children.

      Through happenstance, "Lord of the Rings" has become in our time a mirror of our own history. Its first part, "The Fellowship of the Ring," appeared the Christmas after 9/11 and spoke with extra force to a world contemplating a clear-cut struggle between good and evil. The eerily named Part 2, "The Two Towers," arrived last winter after the fall of the Taliban and during the ramp-up of debate preceding the war in Iraq. It was very much a middle chapter and, as such, was appropriate to late 2002, as the world held its breath waiting for the next confrontation to be joined. "The Two Towers" could also be read as an implicit argument for the value of coalitions when facing a fearsome enemy. Only when the huge talking trees join the good guys in battle is victory within reach.

      In the final installment, the pre-eminent heavy of the first two parts, the evil wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee), has vanished — as out of sight, if not mind, as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Though the triumph of the coalition against Sauron is a given, that coalition must gain new adherents to achieve it. Nonetheless, Tolkien`s intrinsic opposition to absolute power, no matter who holds it, is applied to his hero as well as the villains. Frodo (Elijah Wood) clings so tightly to the epic`s supernatural source of all power, the Ring, that it starts to warp him and his values. Only if he relinquishes his hold on unilateral force can he save civilization and achieve a lasting peace.

      Even so, "Lord of the Rings" is, as we want our Christmas movies to be, an escape from present reality. The climactic battles that Mr. Jackson has staged hark back to bygone Western history. Huge forces batter against one another in classic military patterns. The enemy is not faceless, like the forces assaulting our troops in Iraq. Nor is it "strategically and operationally insignificant," as the American commander in Iraq describes the guerillas aligned against us. Quite the contrary: the evil Orcs are in full view as they assemble to attack, and that`s comforting. The movie depicts the war the West can fight best rather than the war we now have.

      We must enjoy the fantasy of "Lord of the Rings" while it lasts. The cineplexes showing our Christmas war movies are already running a trailer for "The Day After Tomorrow," an epic from the creators of "Independence Day" in which an apocalyptic conflagration lays waste to major American cities. On Memorial Day, the legend on screen informs us, "It Will Happen Again" and asks, "Where Will You Be?"

      What exactly is that ambiguous "It"? The vivid images in the trailer are of a devastated Los Angeles, a tempest-tossed New York. It`s enough to make any American, not just the president, nostalgic for the premature victory lap, a mere seven months ago, of "Top Gun."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 11:05:25
      Beitrag Nr. 10.402 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 11:06:37
      Beitrag Nr. 10.403 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 11:19:05
      Beitrag Nr. 10.404 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 11:20:13
      Beitrag Nr. 10.405 ()
      Iraqi Kurd Group Says Saddam Hussein Arrested
      Sun December 14, 2003 05:13 AM ET

      TEHRAN (Reuters) - The Tehran office of an Iraqi Kurd group said on Sunday that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had been arrested in Iraq.
      "I confirm that Saddam has been arrested," Nazem Dabag, representative in Iran of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, told Reuters.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 11:30:02
      Beitrag Nr. 10.406 ()

      washingtonpost.com
      At Recovery`s Dawn
      Behind the Numbers and the Euphemisms Lie Some Messy Realities

      By David Finkel
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Sunday, December 14, 2003; Page A01


      Last in a series of occasional articles

      FRANKENMUTH, Mich.

      The economic recovery has arrived. The proof is here at Bronner`s Christmas Wonderland, the largest Christmas store in the world.

      "Hi. I`m Chris Hill, and I`m in the Sparkle Department," Bronner`s newest hire is saying, and if she can`t quite contain her smile it`s because she`s been waiting for this moment for more than a year.

      First, Kmart said no. Then Old Navy. Then Fashion Bug. Then Sally`s Beauty Supply. On it went, month after month, as companies kept shedding workers. Even the dollar stores said no. And then, in November, when the economy added 57,000 jobs, Bronner`s said yes, and here Hill is, in an information session for new employees, being reintroduced to the working world.

      In comes the personnel director, who says to Hill and 13 other new hires that Bronner`s received 2,000 applications this year. "You are definitely the cream of the crop," she says. "You are top-notch."

      In comes the marketing director to emphasize what`s expected of them. "All of you are walking, talking commercials for Bronner`s," she says. "Are the bathrooms clean? Is the building clean? Whatever they see, that`s their impression of Bronner`s."

      In comes the president and CEO, who continues the cleanliness theme. "What`s the number one question people ask when they come in the store? Keep in mind they`ve been driving to get here. `Where`s the nearest restroom?` Have you been to the restrooms yet? Pretty nice, huh? I`m going to venture to say that our restrooms are nicer and cleaner than most people`s restrooms at home."

      In comes Wally Bronner, the founder, who says, "How many of you are in the Sparkle Department?"

      Everyone turns to look at Hill, the only one with a hand in the air, and suddenly her status is clear. They will lose their jobs by the end of December. She will still be working in January. They are seasonal. She is permanent. They are Sales. She is Sparkle.

      "Well, I hope everyone considers themselves members of Sparkle, that you sparkle with your faces," Bronner tells the other 13. "Let`s make this place sparkle," he then says, and with that Hill heads out of the conference room, down the stairs, across the showroom floor and through a doorway marked Men.

      She puts on her gloves. She gets out her disinfectant. She inventories the four urinals.

      "Three of the four need to be flushed," she says.

      Time for the Sparkle Department to get to work.

      Euphemism Masks Reality


      As the year comes to an end, these are the facts about the recovering economy: The unemployment rate in November was back below 6 percent after hitting a high of 6.4 percent in June. The number of people working is on the rise -- 138.6 million in November, up from 137.5 million in January. The number of jobs is on the rise, as well -- up 328,000 since July. "The American economy is strong" was President Bush`s reaction last week when the November employment figures were released, "and it is getting stronger."

      But just as "sparkle" can be a euphemism for housekeeping, "recovering" can gloss over the reality of what for millions of Americans having a job has come to mean.

      More people are working part time than ever: Last month, for the first time, the number exceeded 25 million.

      More are classified as "involuntary" part-time, meaning they would rather be working full time: 4.9 million in November, an increase of 600,000 from a year ago and 1.6 million since the recession began in March 2001.

      More are working for less pay than they have worked for in the past -- the sectors of the economy adding jobs pay an average of $14.65 an hour, while those discarding jobs pay $16.92, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington research center.

      In addition, more people are cobbling together a working life of two or three part-time jobs to keep up with bills. More jobs come without benefits, the chance for mobility and the security of long-term stability. Wages for most workers are not keeping up with inflation. The number of manufacturing jobs has declined 40 months in a row. The average time spent looking for work is now more than 20 weeks. And many people remain not working at all. Even with the addition of those 328,000 jobs, the total number of jobs is still 2.35 million lower than before the recession.

      "I`m happy that we`re adding jobs. At the same time, I`m mindful of some of the constraints some of these jobs are bringing with them relative to the ones that are being lost," says Jared Bernstein, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. "We`re so focused on jobs -- Are we adding them? How many? -- I think we may have lost focus on what kind of jobs we`re getting. Job quality is pretty low right now compared to what it`s been in the past."

      In Frankenmuth, at 1515 S. Main St., Hill is a perfect reflection of this reality. Fifty-one years old, she had been, over the course of her life, a housewife, a seamstress, a nurse`s aide, a bank teller, and was working in a mall card-and-gift shop, thinking about management, when she quit to take care of her aging parents. That was just before the recession. Last year she put them into assisted living, and as 2003 began, her savings gone, her furnace broken, her house so cold she had to move in with relatives, the time had come to go back to work. She`d never had difficulty finding a job and started hopefully. By midyear, after so many rejections, she had become one of America`s 450,000 "discouraged" workers, which is a euphemism for giving up, and by year`s end she finds herself -- just like the economy -- recovering.

      Slowly.

      Sounds of Christmas, 361 Days a Year


      There were necessary concessions to make. She wanted full-time. She got part-time. She wanted a wage high enough to get her furnace fixed this winter. She got $7 an hour, which means 51/2 hours of work just to pay back the $38 she borrowed to buy work shoes. She wanted sales. She got cleaning.

      But it is a job nonetheless, and as a Thursday gets underway, Bronner`s newest permanent employee is nothing but enthusiastic. Before going to work she painted her fingernails red so they would match her Bronner`s shirt, and as her shift begins she is listening intently as two other Sparkle members give her the lowdown on what`s ahead.

      "Whatever`s dirty, we clean it up," says Karen Cooper, 59, seven years on the job. "When there are bloody noses, we have to wear double gloves."

      "Kids throw up," warns Bonnie Barker, 63. "A lot."

      "We have to protect ourselves," Cooper says. "I worked in the motels, they gave you nothing. A pair of Playtex gloves. One pair."

      "Poop on the floor," Barker says. "And the walls."

      "If we have 15,000 people in one day, and one throw-up job, that`s not bad," Cooper says.

      "Oh, I imagine," Hill says. "I imagine."

      "Wait till Saturday," Cooper says, the voice of experience. "You`ll be amazed."

      They head into the cubicle area to empty trash cans. Three hundred people work at Bronner`s year-round, including the person in a corner cubicle whose trash suggests a candy fixation, and the person in the next cubicle, who obviously likes pistachios, and the person in the next cubicle, who seems to have a cold.

      Next come the offices, including an especially large one where a pair of red loafers rests on the carpet. These belong to Wally Bronner, 76, a very successful, very cheerful man who began this day with a practical joke on a receptionist who`d brought in a cake. He walked up to thank her, and for a moment she wondered what to say as he stood before her with icing smeared all over his face. Then she laughed, and he did, too, and a few pieces of icing dropped to the carpet, which Hill is now cleaning up.

      "Wally, he wants everything kept spiffy," Cooper says. They are back in the bathrooms now. Hill is wiping stall walls with disinfectant, and Cooper is cleaning faucet handles with a toothbrush, explaining that Bronner sometimes sets traps, putting a piece of trash in a hidden-away corner to see how long it takes to be cleaned up. "Spiffy," she repeats, but in eight years she has come to understand why. "I mean, we have people who want their pictures taken in the bathrooms. `Will you take my picture please?` So I take them. Foreigners. They must not have that kind of beauty in their country. So they take the pictures back to their homeland and say, `Look at this beautiful place.` "

      "Huh. That is something," Hill says.

      "We must have more than some, and not as much as others, I guess," says Cooper.

      Now they are in the lobby area, where Cooper finds a balled-up candy wrapper in a phone booth and wonders whether Bronner put it there, and now they are on the showroom floor.

      It is 2.1 acres of sales space. It is 50,000 different items. It is 500 Nativity sets, 800 Hummels, 700 animated Santas and snowmen, 350 decorated trees. It is Christmas lights, everywhere. It is a two-minute-long snowfall of soap flakes every half-hour by the main entrance where the tour buses are lined up before the doors even open, and Christmas music, nothing but Christmas music, 361 days a year.

      This is what Hill has been hired into: 361 opportunities a year to work. The 2.1 acres have to be vacuumed. The soap flakes occasionally leave carpet stains. The tour buses are jammed with people who make beelines for the bathrooms, and then seem to think the way to dispose of toilet tissue is to leave it on the floor. But at this moment, as she looks around, that`s not what Hill is seeing.

      "Beautiful, isn`t it?" she says.

      Merchandise Worth Months of Pay


      Friday morning now. One day closer to Saturday and whatever that will bring. "Just wait," Cooper keeps saying, as if the 2 million people who visit Bronner`s a year will all show up at once. But Hill`s concern this morning is her mother. Eighty-seven years old, she is being given a surprise birthday party on Saturday afternoon. Hill and her sisters began planning it weeks ago. Then Hill got this job. Then she got her work schedule. The party is at 1. She`s working till 2. "Can`t you get time off?" one of her sisters asked.

      "I said, `I`m a new employee. I don`t think I can ask,` " Hill says as she pushes a vacuum cleaner across the showroom floor. Her sister seemed surprised. How many times does a mother turn 87? How many surprise parties are left?

      But how could Hill ask for time off when she`s so new that she couldn`t even answer Cooper`s opening question to her this morning?

      "You know the first thing we do, don`t you?"

      "Toilets?"

      "No. Refrigerators. Always refrigerators."

      So she did refrigerators. And then cleaned the break area where, yesterday, clocked out for lunch, she had hurried through a peanut butter sandwich while another Sparkle worker, Betty Stedry, talked about how much getting this job meant to her, that she had been out of work six months since being laid off, that she was at the point "when I was cutting back on my food," that when she got a callback from Bronner`s "I came running, I mean it, running," that "I`m just so happy to be working."

      "Me, too," Hill had said, and now, as her sisters prepare for a party, she is moving a vacuum cleaner across 2.1 acres, 14 inches at a time, thinking about how complicated the notion of work has become with each succeeding generation in her family.

      First came her father -- 47 years at General Motors, from high school to retirement.

      Then her -- married at 20, a baby boy when she was 24, a baby girl when she was 28, a divorce when she was 38, a patchwork of jobs after that, the constant in her life being a place she can`t imagine leaving, no matter how hard she has to scramble to stay.

      Then her children -- now 27 and 23 and gone. The daughter, unemployed, left a few weeks ago. The son, unemployed also, followed a few days ago. Both left for West Virginia and their father`s trailer, hoping the opportunities for work would be better there.

      She vacuums around a 15-foot-tall soldier that sells for $2,775, an amount equal to the value of 396 hours of her work. She vacuums past Stumpy the $8,900 singing tree and makes her way toward the personnel office, where this year`s 2,000 job applications -- including one from a woman named Bonnie Sherman and one from a man named Jason Slatton -- are stacked in folders and file cabinets. It was two weeks ago when Hill first went into those offices to be interviewed, and her timing could not have been better. Sparkle was ready to hire, and rather than go back through applications, she was given the job.

      "Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow," Stumpy the tree is now singing, and meanwhile, 10 miles to the south, Bonnie Sherman, 49, laid off two years ago and still unemployed, wonders if Bronner`s is going to call.

      "I mean it`s not a lifelong dream, cleaning," Sherman says Friday afternoon, about the time Hill`s shift is winding down. But she needs a job and says, "If I didn`t have somebody to help me, I wouldn`t have made it."

      That would be a boyfriend, who makes $9 an hour putting brake fluid in gallon containers. The job she was laid off from, examining boxes of automobile parts for defects, paid $6 an hour. Fifteen dollars an hour meant an okay life, she says; $9 means they`re trying to sell one of their vehicles, a truck whose engine gave out. "We have food. We get by," she says. "But we`ve racked up a lot of bills trying to get through."

      What kind of job has Sherman been looking for?

      "Anything," she says.

      What would she like to earn?

      "About $10 an hour. I could live off that."

      How much would she expect from Bronner`s?

      "Six dollars."

      Part-time?

      "I would take part-time."

      Benefits?

      "I don`t know anybody that offers benefits anymore."

      How much is the truck?

      "Whatever," she says. "Who wants a truck with no engine?"

      Meanwhile, not far away, Jason Slatton, another of the 2,000 applicants, also unemployed, is celebrating his 22nd birthday. It is later Friday now, nearing sundown, and Slatton is preparing a birthday dinner for himself and his fiancée, Kari Tyner, a Bronner`s seasonal employee who will lose her job by Dec. 31.

      They are in the living room of his parents` townhouse, which is where they live now. He has been looking for work steadily since June 25, when he got out of the Army after a tour that took him to South Korea and taught him "outrageous computer skills" -- all of which have added up to nothing back in the real world.

      "Newspapers. Temp agencies. Driving down the road. Keeping an eye peeled. Word of mouth. Asking friends. Relatives. Anything I can think of, with no luck," he says of his search. "I`m just looking for anything right now. If I could make six bucks an hour doing factory work, 40 hours a week, I`d jump all over it. . . . I don`t even care if it has benefits. Just a weekly paycheck so we can get our own place and settle in. I figure if I have a full-time job, doing whatever, and she has a part-time job, we`ll be able to make it. That apartment in Frankenmuth," he says to Tyner, "how much was it?"

      "Two hundred eighty a month," she says.

      "Throw in the phone -- I don`t know if that includes utilities -- that could do it," he says as he goes to the kitchen to check on the dinner. "I`m not trying to live big; I`m just trying to live. Get out of Mom and Dad`s. I`m 22 years old. I`ve been in the Army. I`ve been in South Korea. I want to be on my own."

      "It`s hard living with his parents," Tyner says, remaining in the living room, quiet enough for him not to hear. "It`s stressful. We can`t really get out on our own. The car`s messed up, and we can`t afford to get it fixed. And I`m going to lose my job."

      "I`m running out of places to apply," Slatton says, still in the kitchen.

      Back in the living room: "I don`t know. I don`t know," Tyner says of what they`re going to do.

      Back in the kitchen: "The one good lead I had," Slatton says of Bronner`s.

      Back in the living room: "See, what we were going to do got messed up. We were going to rent a hotel and go out to eat," Tyner says of the plans for this birthday. "He is cooking dinner, though, so that`ll be kind of romantic."

      Back in the kitchen: "It`s almost ready," Slatton calls out. A steak so skinny it curls in the frying pan, a pot of cheese sauce, a salad. "Oh, I almost forgot," he says. He opens the refrigerator and pulls out a hidden bottle of wine. "I think it`s time to bust it."

      Doors Open, Customers Swarm In


      Meanwhile, the one who did get the job is up till 1 a.m. finishing a cake for her mother, and now, Saturday morning, is back at work before sunup, getting Bronner`s ready for one of its busiest days of the year.

      "We`re in trouble today" is Hill`s greeting from Cooper. "Remember those diapers? Well, we forgot them yesterday. There`s going to be bitching about that."

      The day is on.

      Refrigerators. Vacuuming. Bathrooms. Chrome. Tile. Porcelain. Nine a.m.: "Okay, girls, I gotta open," announces the woman in charge of opening the doors, outside of which are four idling tour buses, and in swarm the customers, straight through the cascading soap flakes to the bathrooms.

      "Very nice!" says Donna, from Windsor, Ontario, as she emerges.

      "Very clean!" says a woman from France.

      "It`s very good," says Fabrizio Bruno, of Italy, emerging from the men`s room. "It`s very impressive."

      Five hours later, toward 2, as Bronner`s nears gridlock, Hill, Cooper and Barker take on the bathrooms again, and this time they supply the reviews:

      "Immaculate!" says Cooper.

      "Magnificent!" says Barker.

      "It`s . . . sparkling!" Hill says, starting to laugh, and soon after is in her car, steering out of the overflowing parking lot, skirting the man carrying a 32-inch fiber optic tree and a man struggling with a set of illuminated donkeys, on her way to the party.

      She arrives an hour after the surprise. She is still in her red work shirt, which matches her chipping nails, as she walks into a church basement. There are her parents, both in wheelchairs, surrounded by several dozen people, all of whom arrived on time.

      "Was she surprised?" she asks.

      "Yes. She was," says one of her sisters. "They rolled Mom in first, then Dad, and we all yelled `Surprise,` and everybody clapped, and Mom about cried. She had tears in her eyes."

      She kisses her mother, who still has tears in her eyes as she says to everyone, "I want to thank God for giving me such a wonderful family."

      She kisses her father who, as the afternoon goes on, reminisces about a life at General Motors. "The day I hired in, there were so many men looking for a job they pushed the wall in in the employment office, surging back and forth," he says. It was 1934, the midst of the Depression. "I was a small man," he continues. "I had to crawl through the legs of bigger men. The man hiring said, `You don`t look big enough.` I said, `I can lift my weight in wildcats.` He said, `Come in.` And I got hired."

      He looks across the room at his daughter now.

      "We always worry about our children," he says.

      She walks over, wondering what he has been saying. He points to his empty cake plate.

      "That was real good," he says.

      "Well, thank you, Dad," she says, and suddenly she finds herself missing her own children and wishing they were still here.

      She did speak to them last night, on the phone, when she was waiting for the cake to cool. Her daughter said she had found a job in a package-processing center, third shift, $9.75 an hour, and asked how things were going back in Michigan. "Everything`s going fine," Hill said. Then her son came on and said he had gotten a job, too, $12 an hour pouring concrete, and she, in turn, told him about getting her first paycheck. It was for $108.71. She took it to a bank to open a checking account. The bank had a promotion for new customers. She spun a glittery wheel, and when it came to a stop on the number 10, they gave her a $10 bill.

      "My lucky day," she said.

      "You haven`t had time to miss us, have you?" her son said, and now, thinking about the last two weeks of her recovering life, Hill says, "It`s like ever since I put in my application, everything`s been going really, really well."

      This, then, is how recovery occurs:

      "You have to work tomorrow?" one of Hill`s sisters asks.

      "Yes," Hill says. "I do."




      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 11:39:52
      Beitrag Nr. 10.407 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      The Cost of Toughness




      Sunday, December 14, 2003; Page B06


      U.S. FORCES are engaged in a major offensive in southeastern Afghanistan, a sweep U.S. officials say is intended to improve security conditions for the national Afghan political convention, or loya jirga, which begins today. Sadly, the most conspicuous results of the campaign so far are the deaths of 15 children in two recent episodes that involved raids on the compounds of suspected militants. Rather than help the loya jirga, the U.S. actions may have made it more difficult for Afghan President Hamid Karzai to lead the event, which is meant to approve a new constitution. Pentagon officials have expressed regrets, announced investigations and offered assistance to those affected. But the incidents provide a painful illustration of the high risks and costs of the Bush administration`s move toward tougher military tactics in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

      The shift to the offensive in the two countries in recent weeks has been prompted by a surge in the number and size of attacks by enemy insurgents -- and in military terms, the response is probably necessary. The history of counterinsurgency shows that even a small and disorganized resistance can be defeated only with determined offensive tactics. Some civilian casualties are inevitable; so is some measure of hardship for the general population. Yet history also demonstrates that victory isn`t possible unless the support and cooperation of a large part of the public can be won and held. The trick is to mount a campaign that is tough enough to find and defeat insurgents but also precise, humane and accountable. That is where the Bush administration risks falling short.

      Targeting enemy leaders and terrorist operatives in a war zone isn`t wrong. But airstrikes may maximize the possibility of mistakes and civilian casualties. That is what apparently happened in the Afghan village of Hutala Dec. 6, when a U.S. plane bombed a compound in an attempt to kill one militant; the enemy was missed, but nine children were killed. According to Human Rights Watch, 50 such "decapitation strikes" in Iraq this year failed to eliminate any top leaders -- but did kill dozens of civilians.

      Other U.S. tactics skirt the Geneva Conventions while infuriating Iraqis. U.S. forces have rounded up the family of one Baathist leader suspected of organizing resistance, bombed or otherwise demolished houses suspected of being used as bases and surrounded villages with barbed wire, effectively imprisoning their residents. Young men in some areas appear to have been detained indiscriminately for interrogation. As in Afghanistan, episodes in which U.S. soldiers kill or injure innocent people are rarely followed by steps to assign accountability. American spokesmen often refuse to admit to such errors even when they are well-documented.

      Such behavior extracts a needless cost from the effort to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan under liberal governments. It forces even America`s allies in those countries to distance themselves from the Bush administration. They also can breed disturbing and destructive attitudes among some U.S field commanders. "You have to understand the Arab mind," one captain outside a barricaded village told a reporter from the New York Times. "The only thing they understand is force." That arrogant philosophy about an occupied population has trapped Israel, Russia and other nations in endless and unwinnable wars. The United States must not repeat their mistakes.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 12:15:26
      Beitrag Nr. 10.408 ()




      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 12:41:14
      Beitrag Nr. 10.409 ()
      Dec 14, 6:31 AM EST

      First Tests Show Captured Man Is Saddam

      By JOHN SOLOMON
      Associated Press Writer





      WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. military captured a man in the basement of a building in Tikrit, Iraq, during raids seeking Saddam Hussein, and initial efforts to verify his identity indicate he is the deposed Iraqi dictator, U.S. officials said.

      "It certainly looks good," one senior U.S. official said, cautioning more scientific testing, possibly DNA, was being done early Sunday morning to try to confirm the identity.

      The official said the captured man`s appearance did not immediately look like Saddam, but additional efforts to ascertain his identity indicated he was the former leader.

      The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity.

      The military raids in and near Tikrit, Saddam`s hometown, were based on fresh intelligence and were aimed at capturing Saddam, the officials said, and the man was captured in one of the targeted buildings.


      "He was in a cellar of the building. His appearance was such that it made it not immediately certain you could say it was Saddam Hussein," one senior U.S. official said.

      But some marks on the man`s body and other information gave the U.S. military its first confirmation they might have their target, officials said.

      Saddam`s capture would be a defining moment in the Iraq war and subsequent rebuilding process, and Bush administration officials have hoped it would lessen or break the organized resistance against U.S. troops that have led to scores of deaths since the end of combat operations.

      Saddam proved elusive at least twice during the war, when dramatic military strikes came up empty in their efforts to assassinate him. Since then, he has appeared in both video and audio tapes.

      But U.S. officials struck a major blow earlier this year when they killed Saddam`s two sons during a raid.

      Still, Saddam and uncanny ability to survive kept him out of U.S. custody for more than six months after the war started.

      Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 15:00:58
      Beitrag Nr. 10.410 ()

      A photo of Saddam Hussein after his capture is shown during a press conference in Baghdad, December 14, 2003. U.S. troops captured Saddam Hussein near his home town of Tikrit announced U.S. administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer on Sunday, in a major coup for Washington`s beleaguered occupation force in Iraq. Photo by Reuters (Handout)


      Saddam Captured While Hiding in Hole Near Hometown
      Sun December 14, 2003 08:04 AM ET


      By Robin Pomeroy
      TIKRIT, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops captured Saddam Hussein near his home town of Tikrit in a major coup for Washington`s beleaguered occupation force in Iraq.

      Grubby and bearded, apparently exhausted and resigned to his fate, the fugitive dictator was dug out by troops from a narrow hiding hole during a raid on a farm late Saturday, the U.S. commander in Iraq told a news conference Sunday.

      "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him," a beaming U.S. administrator Paul Bremer said in his first, pithy comments.

      "The tyrant is a prisoner."

      Amid scenes of undisguised jubilation at U.S. headquarters in Baghdad, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez played a video of the 66-year-old ousted leader, in a heavy black and gray beard, undergoing a medical examination that appeared to include the taking of saliva swabs for DNA testing. Sanchez also showed a still photograph, apparently taken later, of a shaven Saddam.

      Across the capital, gunfire crackled in celebration.

      Joy greeted final proof that the man who terrorized his people for 30 years and led them into three disastrous wars was now behind bars and facing trial, even possible execution, at Iraqi hands.

      "There were no injuries. Not a single shot was fired," said Sanchez, adding that Saddam seemed "tired and resigned."

      It was a contrast to the end of Saddam`s once powerful sons, Uday and Qusay, who went down guns blazing against an overwhelming U.S. force at a house in Mosul in July.

      Troops acting on a tip-off surrounded the farm outside Ad Dawr, just south of Tikrit, the city where Saddam was born into a poor family of minority Sunni Muslims. He rose through tribal contacts and a taste for ruthless violence to dominate the Arab nationalist Ba`ath party, which seized power in a 1968 coup.

      The soldiers finally tracked the fugitive down to the bottom of a narrow, man-sized pit, some six to eight feet deep, Sanchez said.

      BOON FOR BUSH

      The arrest is a major boon for President Bush after seven months of increasingly bloody attacks on U.S. forces and their allies following Saddam`s ousting on April 9.

      His campaign for re-election next year has been overshadowed by mounting casualties and wrangling with key allies over Iraq.

      It may break the spirit of some of his diehard supporters and ease anxieties of many Iraqis who lived in fear for three decades under a man who led them into three disastrous wars.

      U.S. officials will also hope to extract key intelligence on the alleged weapons programs which formed the public grounds for Bush to go to war in defiance of many U.N. allies. Little evidence of banned weapons has been found.

      Saddam had kept up a stream of belligerent rhetoric from hiding, even after his sons were killed. Already vexed by its failure to find al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Washington blamed Saddam for promoting some of the violence against its forces and put a $25 million price on his head.

      But analysts warned that other groups could go on fighting.

      "This has lifted a shadow from the people of Iraq. Saddam will not be returning," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a statement.

      Washington had made Saddam number one -- the "ace of spades" -- on its list of 55 most-wanted Iraqis. An informer was paid $30 million and given refuge in the United States for turning in Uday and Qusay.

      DEATH SENTENCE?

      Saddam would be put on trial, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi told Reuters. A tribunal system for Iraqis to try Saddam and fellow Baathist leaders was set up only last week.

      "This is good for Iraq. He will be put on trial. Let him face justice," Chalabi, who returned after the invasion from years in U.S. exile, said in Baghdad.

      A U.S.-led coalition official said last week the Iraqi government to be formed by June would be free to re-establish the death penalty, although most of the countries supplying experts setting up the tribunal do not have it. Saddam made free use of execution, killing thousands during his years in power.

      Hours after the arrest, a suspected suicide car bomber killed at least 17 people and wounding 33 at an Iraqi police station in the restive town of Khalidiyah, west of Baghdad.

      U.S. officials had said Saddam had eluded American troops by moving every few hours, probably in disguise and aided by members of his clan around Tikrit, north of Baghdad.

      "His arrest will put an end to military and terrorist attacks and the Iraqi nation will achieve stability," said Amar al-Hakim, a senior member of the Shi`ite political party the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

      "We want Saddam to get what he deserves. I believe he will be sentenced to hundreds of death sentences at a fair trial because he`s responsible for all the massacres and crimes in Iraq."

      Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute in London, warned, however, that there were other anti-American groups in Iraq ready to continue attacks.

      "There will be a reduction in operations sponsored by former regime loyalists, but this is not the full story because they are not the only group involved," he said.

      "For the Americans after the failure to capture Osama bin Laden after so many years, it is a propaganda coup...It`s an intelligence prize because they can get information from him about cells working now. And it`s a huge victory."
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 15:08:46
      Beitrag Nr. 10.411 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-…
      THE WORLD



      U.S. Officials and Iraqis Agree That Conflict Will Get Worse
      As the insurgency grows more sophisticated, bloodier attacks are foreseen. The coalition remains confident of eventual victory.
      By Patrick J. McDonnell and John Hendren
      Times Staff Writers

      December 14, 2003

      SAMARRA, Iraq — Eight months after the fall of Baghdad, U.S.-led forces in Iraq are facing a prolonged campaign against insurgents who have shown increasing sophistication in tactics, strategy and intelligence-gathering, according to military officials and analysts.

      An insurgency that kicked off with frenzied pot shots and stray bombings by seemingly ragtag gunmen has coalesced into an effective, guerrilla-style war of attrition featuring a daily drumbeat of attacks interspersed with sensational strikes.

      The insurgents have learned to mount targeted bombings, crippling sabotage, helicopter shoot-downs and — in this volatile city north of Baghdad — a synchronized urban ambush with scores of fighters firing machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortar shells at U.S. formations.

      "There was coordination — to say otherwise would make no sense," said Col. Frederick Rudesheim, commander of the 3rd Combat Brigade here, which said its forces killed as many as 54 insurgents in the Nov. 30 firefight, a figure widely disputed by residents. "They put together an attack. And they didn`t do it overnight."

      In an effort to assess where the U.S.-led occupation stands at the end of the year, two reporters spent several weeks interviewing commanders, regular soldiers and pro- and anti-American Iraqis throughout the battle zone. Although U.S. officials remained confident of victory, they and almost everyone else agreed that an already bloody conflict is about to get worse.

      No one anticipates anything but fiercer combat until at least next summer, when the U.S.-led coalition is scheduled to hand over control of Iraq to an interim government and troop levels are expected to decrease to about 100,000 from the current 112,000.

      "We expect to see an increase in violence as we move forward towards sovereignty," Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a frank assessment echoed by L. Paul Bremer III, the civilian administrator.

      But U.S. officials point to progress: a drop in daily attacks against coalition forces by more than 50% — from a high of 55 daily attacks a month ago to 20 today — as the Army launched several major offensives involving bombing runs, house-to-house searches, enhanced patrols and the encirclement of entire villages with barbed wire.

      The Army says improved intelligence gathering, boosted by financial rewards for informers with accurate information about attackers, has resulted in the breakup of several insurgent cells, including the ones believed responsible for the October attack on the Al Rashid Hotel and the roadside assassination last month of seven Spanish intelligence agents.

      Yet commanders acknowledge that busted cells have demonstrated an ability to regenerate, replenished by the legions of former Iraqi army officers, disenfranchised Saddam Hussein loyalists and angry young men without jobs reared on anti-Western invective who can earn some cash by attacking soldiers and allies. As strikes against heavily guarded coalition forces have decreased, assaults on "soft" targets — foreign contractors as well as police officers, public officials and other Iraqis seen as collaborators — have surged.

      "The organizers of these attacks have the money — and everything in Iraq now revolves around money," said Army Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who heads the 101st Airborne Division in the northern city of Mosul.

      A week ago, the Army seized $1.9 million in cash from a suspected insurgent`s home in Samarra, a massive sum in a city where the major income comes from Shiite pilgrims to its renowned, gold-domed mosque.

      Despite the drop-off in the overall number of attacks, November still featured more coalition fatalities — 111 — than any month since the war began in March, in part because of the crash of four U.S. helicopters under fire.

      The psychological toll is such that there is a widespread expectation that the recent lull in Baghdad is a prelude to some kind of major insurgent operation — and there is little that can be done to stop it.

      "We either have put a huge dent in their ability to strike in Baghdad," said a senior commander who declined to be identified, his tone revealing some disbelief in that theory, "or they`re getting ready for a major attack. It`s been too quiet."

      Since summer, the insurgents have successfully pushed the front lines beyond the so-called Sunni Triangle in central Iraq to once relatively calm northern cities such as Mosul and Kirkuk, both now awash in attacks and insecurity. Assaults in the largely Shiite south have also thwarted progress and sown uncertainty.

      The systematic advance of the insurgent strategy has stunned many U.S. planners, who remain bewildered by the guerrillas` command structure. The walls of Army tactical centers are inevitably filled with charts trying to trace cell members and their links to financiers, known affiliates of Hussein`s Baath Party, Fedayeen Saddam paramilitary fighters, hostile sheiks and other suspected subversives.

      "The thing that is frustrating still is we`re not able to connect what`s happening," said Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who heads Task Force Iron Horse, operating out of Tikrit, Hussein`s home base.

      The guerrilla war has driven the United Nations and most aid groups from the country, while serving notice to countries looking to help that their personnel — military or civilian — would be targets. Coalition-backed mayors and police officers fear for their lives, and U.S. troops must travel only in convoys along roads previously swept for homemade mines and bombs, impeding both the Army`s military maneuvers and its civilian aid campaigns.

      U.S. civil authorities and their allies are obliged to operate from behind a walled fortress of palaces and offices in the so-called green zone in central Baghdad, isolated from the population they are here to serve.

      "That in itself is victory," observed retired British Air Marshal Tim Garden, now based at the Center for Defense Studies at King`s College in London.

      In timeless guerrilla style, the Iraqi armed opposition appears to have no illusions about inflicting a military defeat on the much larger U.S. force.

      "It`s not necessary for the insurgents to win militarily," said William Hopkinson, Britain`s former assistant secretary of state for policy. "It`s sufficient that they don`t lose."

      Last month, rocket attacks on two major hotels and the Oil Ministry — launched from rickety donkey carts — stole the headlines from Operation Iron Hammer, a much-ballyhooed Army crackdown in the capital. The contrast between the high-tech U.S. approach and the insurgents` primitive but effective strike was unambiguous.

      "The enemy has a lower threshold of victory," said Col. James Hickey, a commander in the unstable region near Tikrit. "All he has to do is get on CNN."

      U.S. officials put the number of insurgent fighters at 5,000, almost all of them Iraqi. (Army officials say foreign fighters are largely confined to the ranks of suicide bombers.) The insurgents` motivation, analysts say, is an explosive mix of nationalistic, political and religious causes. The estimate of 5,000 excludes a much larger civilian base that can be counted on for additional recruits and logistical support.

      In Tikrit, Samarra and other angry towns, pro-insurgency young men gathering to speak with Western journalists inevitably mention the same problems: a lack of economic opportunity, alleged U.S. mistreat- ment and a nationalistic resentment of foreign occupation. Many depended on the former regime for employment, either in the security services or government-run ministries or industries. Now they have nothing.

      "What are we supposed to do, starve?" asked one self-described "moujahed" gathered with other men on a roadside in the farming town of Latifiyah, south of Baghdad, where the Spanish intelligence agents were killed last month and the pro-U.S. police chief was killed.

      Like others, these men dismissed the notion that their fight will diminish once Hussein is killed or captured, as U.S. officials hope.

      "We are not fighting for Saddam," one said.

      A menacing wild card in the war is the corps of suicide bombers, mostly believed to be foreign-born jihadis, whom the insurgent forces appear to be able to call on for precision attacks, such as the bombings at the United Nations` headquarters in Baghdad and a strike at Italian military police headquarters in the southern city of Nasiriyah.

      "We think they can order up a car bomber when they need one," said Brig. Gen. Mark P. Hertling of the 1st Armored Division, which patrols Baghdad.

      With a vast number of U.S. troops scheduled to rotate out after Jan. 1, the Army command has begun to reshape its force — designed for a full-scale ground war — to fit the present, asymmetrical threat. Commanders are stressing a more mobile approach, featuring more light infantry, armored Humvees and fewer tanks and heavy artillery, which have proved of relatively little value in this kind of war.

      "The mixes of forces will get adjusted," said Sanchez, the ground commander, who has promised "a very mobile, very flexible, yet lethal force that can accomplish its mission."

      The changes reflect a kind of learn-as-you-go approach to a guerrilla conflict that caught the military leadership unawares.

      In a report, commanders of the 3rd Infantry Division — which led the assault on Baghdad — said they had won the war faster than expected but "did not have a fully developed plan for the transition" to security operations. The planning has improved at a glacial pace since then, analysts said.

      "The U.S. was dismally unprepared for the security mission, armed nation-building and low-intensity warfare when the regime fell," Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in a recent analysis. "It has taken months to make effective changes."

      In a page from the counterinsurgency wars of Vietnam and Latin America, U.S. forces are now increasingly turning to the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps to staff checkpoints and perform other tasks that the Army would like to outsource. But the Kalashnikov-toting auxiliaries — typically having only three weeks of training and earning less than $100 a month — have become targets. The situation is so inflamed here in Samarra that civil defense officers posted at the bridge over the Tigris River at the entrance to town don ski masks to hide their identity from fellow residents.

      U.S. officials boast of their expanded intelligence-gathering capabilities, but there is some question as to who is winning the intel war.

      Here and elsewhere, the insurgents have been tipped about U.S. moves, the inevitable result of the Army`s increasing reliance on thousands of Iraqi translators, laborers, security forces and others, some of whom are suspected of leaking information to the enemy.

      Advance knowledge of the Army convoys rumbling into Samarra last month to protect a currency-exchange operation allowed insurgent troops to mount the series of coordinated ambushes along densely populated city streets.

      "Our attackers knew the banks we were going to, and they knew the likely routes that we would use," said Rudesheim, adding that dozens of rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs, were fired at U.S. troops. "RPGs are like … Cokes around here."

      Conversations with troops and officers throughout the battle zone point to a hardening of attitudes among U.S. soldiers. Bases that once seemed relatively accessible are now routinely surrounded by 15-foot reinforced walls and rolls of concertina wire — visual evidence of the mounting threat.

      "What the enemy is trying to do is grab some of our soldiers and drag them through the streets, like in Somalia," said Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, who commands an infantry battalion near Samarra, referring to a 1993 incident in Mogadishu, the Somali capital. "That is absolutely unacceptable. We won`t let that happen…. What the enemy understands is fear and violence, and that`s what they`re going to see."

      There is widespread agreement that some reduced contingent of U.S. troops will be needed to maintain peace in the country long after sovereignty is returned to the Iraqis. U.S. commanders envision increasingly turning responsibility over to the rapidly expanding array of new Iraqi security forces, an Iraqification campaign that is a reprise of the Vietnamization program a generation ago.

      The conflict will likely drag on, commanders acknowledge, but the hope is that fewer U.S. troops will be getting wounded and killed.

      "I think it`s critical to get the Iraqis out front," Sanchez said. "And that`s exactly what the Iraqi people want."

      *

      McDonnell reported from Samarra and Hendren from Tikrit.
      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 16:17:11
      Beitrag Nr. 10.412 ()
      December 14, 2003
      White House Is Elated; Bush to Speak at Noon
      By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

      ASHINGTON -- The White House said Sunday that Saddam Hussein`s capture assures the Iraqi people that the deposed leader is gone from power for good.

      "The Iraqi people can finally be assured that Saddam Hussein will not be coming back -- they can see it for themselves," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

      President Bush planned a midday national address on the capture, McClellan said.

      "The president believes this is very good news for the Iraqi people," McClellan said. "Saddam Hussein was a brutal, oppressive dictator responsible for decades of atrocities."

      After three decades in power, Saddam Hussein was captured without a single shot. Shortly after soldiers pulled a haggard, bearded Saddam from a makeshift cellar, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was delivering the news of the prized capture to President Bush.

      Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called it "a remarkable day for the world" and "probably the single most dramatic step in this war." But many challenges still lie ahead in Iraq, said Frist, R-Tenn.

      "We still have the security, we still have the rebuilding ... and we will still have resistance," he told "Fox News Sunday."

      A leading Democratic congressman said the capture "will clearly take the wind out of the sails of the Baath insurgents." Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the senior Democrat of the House Armed Services Committee, said he thinks that "the road to a more stable Iraq is much clearer as a result of this capture."

      U.S. defense officials said Saddam acknowledged his identity while he was being pulled from a makeshift cellar Saturday night.

      Though the raid occurred Saturday afternoon American time, U.S. officials went to great length to keep it quiet until medical tests and DNA testing confirmed Saddam`s identity.

      U.S. officials said the next few days and weeks will be momentous. Though Saddam`s was politely talking and cooperating after his capture, officials have yet to begin the process of intensive intelligence debriefings.

      Rumsfeld first called Bush at about 3:15 p.m. Saturday before the president left Camp David in Maryland and told him that the military believed it had captured Saddam.

      Bush interrupted Rumsfeld`s first words -- "Mr. President, the first reports are not always accurate" -- to say, "This sounds like it`s going to be good news."

      Rumsfeld said U.S. generals were confident about the capture. "That is good news," Bush said, according to McClellan.

      The president wanted more details. Rumsfeld called back with additional information.

      But the confirmation did not come until 5:14 a.m. Sunday, when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice gave the news to Bush, now back at the White House.

      One of the important issues that interrogators will pursue with Saddam is how much control he has had over the Iraqi insurgents who have struck repeatedly with car bombs and grenade attacks.

      Intelligence officials also want to make sure the information that led to Saddam`s capture was not the result of an inner power struggle within the insurgency.

      Bush administration officials must decide when or whether to turn over Saddam to a special war crimes tribunal set up by the Iraqis last week.

      Acting on raw intelligence Saturday, about 600 soldiers from the 4th Infantry and special forces troops waited for the cover of night to raid two locations in the rural area around Saddam`s hometown of Tikrit, officials said.

      Saddam`s capture will be seen as a defining moment in the Iraq war and subsequent rebuilding process. Administration officials have hoped it would lessen or break the organized resistance against U.S. troops that have led to scores of deaths since the end of combat operations.

      Saddam proved elusive at least twice during the war, when dramatic military strikes came up empty in their efforts to assassinate him. Since then, he has appeared in both video and audio tapes. U.S. officials named him No. 1 on their list of 55 most-wanted Iraqis, the lead card in a special deck of most-wanted cards.

      U.S. officials struck a major blow earlier this year when they killed Saddam`s two sons during a raid.

      Bush spent Sunday morning making a series of telephone calls. He spoke to Frist, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, CIA Director George Tenet and the acting president of the Iraqi Governing Council.

      The president also spoke with Rumsfeld, Gen. John Abizaid, whose command territory includes Afghanistan and Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 16:30:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.413 ()
      We got him:

      http://mfile.akamai.com/920/rm/thepost.download.akamai.com/9…

      Video of the Spider Hole and Saddam Hussein
      Sunday, December 14, 2003; 8:04 AM
      http://mfile.akamai.com/920/rm/thepost.download.akamai.com/9…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 16:38:18
      Beitrag Nr. 10.414 ()

      A photo of Saddam Hussein after his capture is shown during a press conference in Baghdad, December 14, 2003. Iraq`s former Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz, in U.S. custody for seven months, helped to confirm the identity of Saddam Hussein after his capture, an official with the U.S.-led administration said

      Iraq`s Aziz Helped Identify Saddam, Official Says
      Sun December 14, 2003 09:02 AM ET


      BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq`s former Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz, in U.S. custody for seven months, helped to confirm the identity of Saddam Hussein after his capture, an official with the U.S.-led administration said Sunday.
      "He was identified with the help of Tareq Aziz," the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Reuters. He did not elaborate.

      The fugitive dictator was dusty, bearded and apparently exhausted when he was found in a narrow hiding hole during a raid on a farm near his home town Tikrit late Saturday.

      Aziz, who surrendered to U.S. forces after the Iraqi president was toppled in April, has been held at the Baghdad airport.

      Aziz, once a close aide of Saddam, also helped U.S. forces confirm the identity of the ousted leader`s two sons, Uday and Qusay, after they were killed by American soldiers in July.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 17:33:51
      Beitrag Nr. 10.415 ()
      Der letzte Poll vor Ergreifung Saddams.
      Was wird das bringen? Wenn man vergleicht die Wachstums-Fata-Morgana ist fast ohne Wirkung verpufft.
      Wenn morgen wieder Soldaten sterben werden, ist es aus mit der Wirkung, auch wenn man den Prozeßverlauf noch ausnutzen könnte.
      Aber das könnte, wenn Saddam nicht mitmacht, wegen der vermuteten Leichen im Keller auch gefährlich sein.

      Newsweek Poll: Dean Rising
      Gore’s endorsement and alarm over Iraq give the Democratic candidate a boostweb exclusive
      By Brian Braiker
      NewsweekDec. 13 - Former Vice President Al Gore’s endorsement of Howard Dean appears to have hurtled the former Vermont governor into a comfortable lead ahead of the other Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll.

      "I have come to the conclusion that in a field of great candidates, one candidate clearly now stands out," Gore told a $125-a-plate breakfast at the National Black Theater Institute of Action Art in Harlem on Dec. 9. Registered Democrats seem to have agreed: 24 percent of those polled rank Dean as their first choice, a big jump from 16 percent one month ago. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman are tied for a distant second with a distant 12 percent of Democrats pulling for their nomination (Clark is down from 15 percent while Lieberman is up from 8).

      Meanwhile, neither good news on the economy, the passage of a Medicare bill nor his surprise Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad seem to have boosted President George W. Bush’s approval ratings among all registered voters: with 51 percent approving and 42 disapproving, his ratings are the lowest in the NEWSWEEK poll’s history. And less than half (45 percent) of voters say they want Bush to be reelected.

      If an election were held today between Dean and Bush, the Vermonter would still likely lose (the president retains a 49 to 42 percent lead among all registered voters in a two-way race). A full 34 percent of all voters give Dean little or no chance of winning in a face-off against Bush.

      Dean’s approval ratings may continue to climb, though, considering more than a third (35 percent) of registered Democrats consider Gore’s endorsement significant enough to make them more likely to vote Dean, and a majority (53 percent) of all registered voters think Dean has at least some chance of beating Bush in a hypothetical two-way election against Bush next year.

      The other leading Democrats slipped slightly against Bush. If a two-way election were held today between Bush and Lieberman, the senator from Connecticut would garner 42 percent of all respondents votes, as compared to Bush’s 51 percent, which represents a five point jump for Bush over a month ago. Similarly, in a race between Clark and Bush, the retired general would win 43 percent of the votes (compared to 45 percent last month) and Bush would win with 49 percent (up from 48 last month).

      On the issues, the narrowing of Bush’s lead over the past couple of months may be due to pessimism over Iraq and the economy. A majority of the voters (54 percent) report that the cost of rebuilding Iraq is making them less inclined to re-elect the president, a statistic that is up from 48 percent as recently as October. Nearly half (44 percent) of all voters say Bush’s handling of the post-war situation in Iraq makes them less likely to vote for him, versus 34 percent who find it makes them more likely to. Exactly half of all voters disapprove of the overall situation in Iraq (versus 45 percent who approve), which is also how wide the spread was in October.

      But Dean’s virulent opposition to the war is not necessarily appealing to voters, more of whom say Dean does not represent their views on Iraq (34 percent) than say he does (26 percent). Just 22 percent of them say Dean’s views on Iraq resonate with them. The man most Democrats (27 percent) consider best suited for the role of leader in Iraq is Clark; only 16 percent consider Dean the most qualified Democrat for that role and even fewer (12 percent) Lieberman.

      The Dow Jones Industrial Average has been flitting above 10,000 for the first time in more than two years and the economy appears to be growing at an impressive rate. But perhaps exuberance over the improving economy has been tempered by lagging job growth and indications that the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates. Thirty-seven percent of all voters think the current state of the economy will still make them less likely to vote for Bush; 30 percent it would make them more likely while almost the exact number (29 percent) doubt it will have any effect on how they vote. The president’s ratings on the economy have actually improved, but remain almost evenly split with 45 percent approving and 46 percent disapproving. Democrats feel Dean is the strongest candidate on the economy, with 23 percent responding he would be do the best out of all them managing the economy and creating jobs. Second to Dean was Lieberman, with just 15 percent feeling that way.

      The controversial Medicare overhaul and prescription-drug benefit that passed with Bush’s backing, meanwhile, seems to have had little effect on his ratings. Thirty-six percent of voters say they approve of the way Bush is handling health care, up just 2 percentage points from one month ago. And more voters overall report being less likely to vote for Bush’s reelection because of the bill (36 percent versus 27 percent who say it will make them more likely).

      Finally, not even a surprise visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving did much to boost public opinion significantly in the president’s favor. Bush’s overall job performance ratings are at a low with 51 percent of all voters approving (and 42 percent disapproving), with less than half (45 percent) interested in seeing him re-elected. Interestingly, Bush’s PR stunt failed to gain much traction just as a gaffe Dean made last month seems to have done him little damage. The former governor courted controversy in November by promising to be the candidate for "guys with Confederate flag decals on their pickup trucks," 38 percent of all registered voters maintain a favorable opinion of him and 37 percent of voters think Dean cares about blacks and other minorities (versus 16 percent who disagree).

      © 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 17:39:10
      Beitrag Nr. 10.416 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 17:44:59
      Beitrag Nr. 10.417 ()
      Iraqi Vice
      Locals are calling it `the bad side of freedom`: pills, porn, prostitution and booze are rampant now. And it`s not only the radicals who blame America.

      Post Saddam sleaze: Pornographic theaters have flourished in Baghdad since the U.S. occupation began
      By Christian Caryl
      NewsweekDec. 22 issue - The trip from Ali`s village to Baghdad takes an hour and a half by bus. As soon as he arrives, the 21-year-old Iraqi heads straight to Abu Abdullah`s, just off Sadoun Street in an alley with a number instead of a name. "I don`t have a wife," he says. "I don`t have enough money to get married. So I come here." At Abu Abdullah`s, $1.50 buys 15 minutes alone with a woman. The room is a cell with only a curtain for a door, and Ali complains that Abu Abdullah`s women should bathe more often. But the young man says it`s still a big improvement from Saddam Hussein`s day. Back then, he says, the only establishment for a poor boy like himself was at a Gypsy settlement on the capital`s western outskirts. "But now there are plenty of places." He grins. "Now we have freedom."

      advertisement

      Before the invasion, Iraq was one of the world`s most tightly controlled societies. Only a few specially licensed stores could sell alcohol, and in recent years drinking was banned outright in restaurants and hotels. A committee in the Ministry of Culture kept a strict watch against even mildly naughty movies, magazines and films. Convicted prostitutes could be beheaded. Hard-core drug abuse was virtually unknown--if you didn`t count certain members of Saddam`s immediate family and their close friends. Now Iraqis like Ali are making up for what they`ve missed--and many other Iraqis, young and old, are blaming America. "Some people say the spread of such things is designed to weaken our society," says Col. Daoud Selman, a police chief in one of Baghdad`s roughest districts. "Every day we hear it from people on the street. Not just the religious people, but ordinary ones, too."

      Iraqis call it "the bad side of freedom." The problems go far beyond Baghdad`s tailgate liquor bazaars, where wildcat shopkeepers peddle booze from the backs of cars, or the arrays of skin magazines on full display at the teeming Bab-i-Sharji market in the heart of town. The worry isn`t only the growing number of visibly intoxicated people around the market, or the pharmacopeia of pills that are readily available there without prescription. What bothers many Iraqis, apparently even some of those who make their living from the sin industry, is the question of where Iraq is headed.

      Walk down the street from the market to the adult cinemas, where 70 cents buys an all-day ticket and the audience hoots in protest if a nonpornographic trailer interrupts the action. "We have to compete with the satellites," says the manager of one theater, almost apologetically. A third of the country`s population is estimated to have access to pornographic TV channels via satellite dish. For those who don`t, enterprising dealers record the footage on videodiscs and sell them for a pittance. "Under Saddam this would have been an automatic six months in jail," says a vendor who keeps ultra-X wares in a drawer for special customers at his video shop in Baghdad`s Karada district. "Now nothing will happen to us."

      Nothing the police are likely to do, anyway. The regime`s vice laws remain on the books, but they`re rarely enforced. "Immediately after the war, we started raids and arresting prostitutes and pimps," says Lt. Col. Omar Zahid, a top cop in Abu Abdullah`s district. "But the American MPs made us release them. After that, the whores and pimps understood they had nothing to fear." The colonel admits he doesn`t know how he could have kept them all anyway; his jail was overflowing with thieves and violent criminals.

      But Islamic vigilantes are inflicting punishments that can be far more severe than a short stay behind bars. Liquor stores and porno shops around the country have been bombed, torched or even attacked with rocket-propelled grenades. Two customers at a porno theater in Mosul died in September when unidentified assailants dropped a hand grenade through a ceiling vent. The owners had previously been threatened by Islamic groups. "In Saddam`s time I had one old night watchman," says Hassan Abd, manager of Baghdad`s Al Khayam theater, which has begun showing adult films. "Now I have three young people armed with Kalashnikovs."

      Most Iraqis say they don`t know what to do about the vice explosion. Few seem at all enthusiastic about the idea of Saudi-style morality police. "We can`t forbid freedom," concedes Fuad al Rawi, a leader of the predominantly Sunni and deeply conservative Iraqi Islamic Party. Still, some people are always ready to try. That`s how people like Saddam come to power.

      © 2003 Newsweek, Inc
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 18:01:52
      Beitrag Nr. 10.418 ()
      `Disoriented` Saddam Captured
      Dec. 14, 2003


      Saddam Hussein is now a prisoner of the U.S. government, reports CBS News Anchor Dan Rather.

      Without firing a shot, American forces captured a bearded and haggard-looking Saddam Hussein in an underground hide-out on a farm near his hometown of Tikrit, ending one of the most intensive manhunts in history.

      He has been taken from the country to an unknown location, reports CBS News Correspondent Thalia Assuras. He was captured with a pistol but did not use it, says Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of 4th Infantry Division.

      The arrest was a huge victory for U.S. forces battling an insurgency by the ousted dictator`s followers.

      “Ladies and gentlemen, we got him,” U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer told a news conference Sunday, eight months after American troops swept into Baghdad and toppled Saddam`s regime.

      “The tyrant is a prisoner.”

      In the capital, radio stations played celebratory music, residents fired small arms in the air in celebration and passengers on buses and trucks shouted, “They got Saddam! They got Saddam!”

      Washington hopes Saddam`s capture will help break the organized Iraq resistance that has killed more than 190 American soldiers since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1 and has set back efforts at reconstruction. U.S. commanders have said that while in hiding Saddam played some role in the guerrilla campaign blamed on his followers.

      In the latest attack, a suspected suicide bomber detonated explosives in a car outside a police station Sunday morning west of Baghdad, killing at least 17 people and wounding 33 more, the U.S. military said.

      Saddam was one of the most-wanted fugitives in the world, along with Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network who has not been caught despite a manhunt since November 2001, when the Taliban regime was overthrown in Afghanistan.

      White House officials are absolutely elated, saying it’s a great day for Iraq. The news lifts a heavy political weight from President Bush’s shoulders, reports CBS News Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts. Mr. Bush will address the nation at noon Eastern time. His speech will be covered live by CBS News.

      Saddam was captured at 8:30 p.m. Saturday in a walled farm compound in Adwar, a town 10 miles from Tikrit, said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq. The cellar was little more than a specially prepared “spider hole” with just enough space to lie down. Bricks and dirt camouflaged the entrance.

      A Pentagon diagram showed the hiding place as a 6-foot-deep vertical tunnel, with a shorter tunnel branching out horizontally from one side. A pipe to the concrete surface at ground level provided air. The entrance to the hide-out was under the floor of a small, walled compound with a room in one corner and a lean-to attached to the room. The tunnel was roughly in the middle of the compound.

      A U.S. defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Saddam admitted his identity when captured.



      Sanchez, who saw Saddam overnight, said the deposed leader “has been cooperative and is talkative.” He described Saddam as “a tired man, a man resigned to his fate.”

      “He was unrepentant and defiant,” said Adel Abdel-Mahdi, a senior official of a Shiite Muslim political party who, along with other Iraqi leaders, visited Saddam in captivity.

      “When we told him, `If you go to the streets now, you will see the people celebrating,”` Abdel-Mahdi said. “He answered, `Those are mobs.` When we told him about the mass graves, he replied, `Those are thieves.”`

      The official added: “He didn`t seem apologetic. He seemed defiant, trying to find excuses for the crimes in the same way he did in the past.”

      The White House said Saddam`s capture assures the Iraqi people that the deposed leader is gone from power for good.

      “The Iraqi people can finally be assured that Saddam Hussein will not be coming back — they can see it for themselves,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

      The streets of Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown and the center of his power base, were quiet, reports CBS News Correspondent Thalia Assuras. The capture of Hussein, considered a hero throughout much of the region, might trigger payback directed at U.S. forces, reports CBS News Correspondent Kimberly Dozier.

      Eager to give Iraqis evidence that the elusive former dictator had indeed been captured, Sanchez played a video at the news conference showing the 66-year-old Saddam in custody.

      Saddam, with a thick, graying beard and bushy, disheveled hair, was seen as doctor examined him, holding his mouth open with a tongue depressor, apparently to get a DNA sample. Saddam touched his beard during the exam. Then the video showed a picture of Saddam after he was shaved, juxtaposed for comparison with an old photo of the Iraqi leader while in power.

      Iraqi journalists in the audience stood, pointed and shouted “Death to Saddam!” and “Down with Saddam!”

      Though the raid occurred Saturday afternoon American time, U.S. officials went to great length to keep it quiet until medical tests and DNA testing confirmed Saddam`s identity.

      DNA tests confirmed Saddam`s identity, said the president of Iraqi Governing Council, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim.

      Saddam was being held at an undisclosed location, and U.S. authorities have not yet determined whether to hand him over to the Iraqis for trial or what is status would be. Iraqi officials want him to stand trial before a war crimes tribunal created last week.

      Amnesty International said Sunday that Saddam should be given POW status and allowed visits by the international Red Cross.

      Ahmad Chalabi, a member of Iraq`s Governing Council, said Sunday that Saddam will be put on trial.

      “Saddam will stand a public trial so that the Iraqi people will know his crimes,” said Chalabi told Al-Iraqiya, a Pentagon-funded TV station.

      British Prime Minister Tony Blair hailed the capture, saying the deposed leader “has gone from power, he won`t be coming back.”

      “Where his rule meant terror and division and brutality, let his capture bring about unity, reconciliation and peace between all the people of Iraq,” Blair said in brief comments at his 10 Downing St. office.

      In Tikrit, U.S. soldiers lit cigars after hearing the news.

      Some 600 troops from the 4th Infantry Division along with Special Forces captured Saddam, the U.S. military said. There were no shots fired or injuries in the raid, called “Operation Red Dawn,” Sanchez said.

      Two men “affiliated with Saddam Hussein” were detained with him, and soldiers confiscated two Kalashnikov rifles, a pistol, a taxi and $750,000 in $100 bills, Sanchez said. The two men were “fairly insignificant” regime figures, a U.S. defense official said.

      Celebratory gunfire erupted in the capital, and shop owners closed their doors, fearful that the shooting would make the streets unsafe.

      “I`m very happy for the Iraqi people. Life is going to be safer now,” said 35-year-old Yehya Hassan, a resident of Baghdad. “Now we can start a new beginning.”

      Earlier in the day, rumors of the capture sent people streaming into the streets of Kirkuk, a northern Iraqi city, firing guns in the air in celebration.

      “We are celebrating like it`s a wedding,” said Kirkuk resident Mustapha Sheriff. “We are finally rid of that criminal.”

      “This is the joy of a lifetime,” said Ali Al-Bashiri, another resident. “I am speaking on behalf of all the people that suffered under his rule.”

      Despite the celebration throughout Baghdad, many residents were skeptical.

      “I heard the news, but I`ll believe it when I see it,” said Mohaned al-Hasaji, 33. “They need to show us that they really have him.”

      Ayet Bassem, 24, walked out of a shop with her 6-year-old son.

      “Things will be better for my son,” she said. “Everyone says everything will be better when Saddam is caught. My son now has a future.”

      After invading Iraq on March 20 and setting up their headquarters in Saddam`s sprawling Republican Palace compound in Baghdad, U.S. troops launched a massive manhunt for the fugitive leader, placing a $25 million bounty on his head and sending thousands of soldiers to search for him.

      Saddam proved elusive during the war, when at least two dramatic military strikes came up empty in their efforts to assassinate him. Since then, he has appeared in both video and audio tapes. U.S. officials named him No. 1 on their list of 55 most-wanted Iraqis, the Ace of Spades in a special deck of most-wanted cards.

      Saddam`s capture leaves 13 figures still at large from the list. The highest ranking figure among them is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a close Saddam aide who U.S. officials have said may be directly organizing resistance.

      U.S. forces had indicated they did not think Saddam would be captured alive.

      Saddam`s sons Qusai and Odai — each with a $15 million bounty on their heads — were killed July 22 in a four-hour gunbattle with U.S. troops in a hideout in the northern city of Mosul. The bounties were paid out to the man who owned the house where they were killed, residents said.



      ©MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 18:14:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.419 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 18:16:11
      Beitrag Nr. 10.420 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 19:11:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.421 ()
      When Donald Met Saddam
      Man trifft sich immer zweimal

      Video Clip: "Shaking Hands with the enemy,"

      Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.


      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm


      Note To Webmasters: Please do not hot link to this video file. I can not afford the bandwidth charges. You are welcome to link to this page.




      - PRESS PLAY TO VIEW -
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 19:22:50
      Beitrag Nr. 10.422 ()
      .

      We Americans talk of `Peace on earth,` but our actions speak louder than words

      By Bruce Mulkey©

      12-14-03: Now we are in the season of Christmas. Celebrations are being held, carols are being sung and prayers are being prayed (not to mention consumers going amok and Atkins dieters falling off the wagon). And in this season many of us honor the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

      I have heard those who proclaim that this is a nation founded on Christian principles. I have heard President Bush assert that Jesus is his favorite philosopher. But when we look at where our government, in our names, puts its attention and a massive portion of its resources-implementing a strategy of preemptively striking our theoretical foes, maintaining a formidable fighting force to assert our military pre-eminence around the world and engaging in an endless war against terrorism-can we really claim to uphold the tenets of the Prince of Peace?

      Some have said that you can determine your priorities by looking at your checkbook ledger. So let`s look at a few of the stubs in our nation`s 2002 checkbook courtesy of the Office of Management and Budget.


      . Military spending: $319 billion
      . Education: $77 billion
      . Transportation: $55 billion
      . Environment: $27 billion
      . HIV/AIDS: $14.7 billion
      . Peace Corps: $277 million

      It`s projected that total military spending from 2000 through the end of 2008 will amount to $3.2 trillion. A trillion here, a trillion there. Pretty soon we`re talking about real money, even by government standards.

      As much as we talk of "peace on earth," our actions make our words ring hollow.

      If we were really serious about creating peace in our time, wouldn`t we be putting a more substantial portion of our resources toward that end? As long as we put our focus on kicking our real or imagined adversaries` butts rather than reconciliation, on glorifying young warriors rather than honoring youth who choose a path of peace, we will continue to create death and destruction . . . for others and for ourselves. Let`s face it; we`ve got a lot of guns and soldiers. We`re going to wind up shooting somebody eventually. And as long as we keep making the same kinds of choices, we`re going to keep getting the same results. To expect otherwise is insanity.

      President Bush and his administration ignored a huge opportunity after 9/11. Immediately following this horrendous blow, the people of the world were with us in mind and spirit. If we had pursued our higher calling and sought understanding and peace with the peoples of the world, while going after the perpetrators
      through legal means, we would have won loyal allies and advocates for our cause. Instead, however, the Bush administration chose to rant and rave and unleash the weaponry we`d stockpiled, as if using our weapons of mass destruction would somehow bring us peace, as if war could stop terrorism when it`s obvious that war itself is an act of terrorism. And now men and women of the U.S. are dying on the battlefields and Iraqis and Afghanis are being mutilated and slaughtered in their own land.

      Moreover, by our belligerent actions, we have created millions of zealous enemies in the Muslim world and spawned thousands of fervent new recruits for the hostile groups that wish us harm. And while we might imagine we`re making ourselves more secure by lashing out at them, our vengeful actions have had the opposite effect, considerably increasing the likelihood that we`ll be attacked again-overseas and here within our borders.

      Tit for tat. Got you last. Just look where such a policy has gotten the Palestinians and the Israelis during the past 50 or so years, with no end in sight. Jesus said, "Those who live by the sword, will die by the sword." This dictum spares none of the sword wielders, not even us Americans. Jesus also said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." Maybe mercy would be a commendable commitment for us all as we celebrate Christ`s birthday this year.

      All contents copyrighted Bruce R. Mulkey, Asheville, North Carolina. All rights reserved.
      To subscribe to Bruce`s e-newsletter, Walking My Talk, visit his website at www.brucemulkey.com
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 19:36:15
      Beitrag Nr. 10.423 ()
      Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

      Saddam Hussein
      International Herald Tribune
      December 14, 2003



      The United States and its allies achieved a central goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq when they captured Saddam Hussein on Saturday. The one incontrovertible fact in the entire bloody and divisive saga of Iraq is that this man ranked with the worst of the world’s tyrants. His crimes — the hundreds of thousands of his people he ordered massacred, gassed and tortured, some quite possibly with his own hands — are monstrous.

      We hope his arrest will bring an end to organized violence against American troops, though that is far from certain. Alas, the guerrilla war against the occupation forces has attracted many Islamist radicals whose goal is simply to wage war on the West, and they are unlikely to call it quits. What the arrest surely will do is relieve Iraqis of the lingering fear that somehow Saddam might return to power. It may also finally shed light on the many mysteries that remain about his dictatorship, including what happened to his unconventional weapons programs.

      It is critical now that the dictator be given a fair and open trial to erase any doubts about the scope of his crimes, to give some solace to the people he terrorized and to give pause to other despots. The trial must be above any suspicion that it is the justice of the victors, or an exercise in propaganda. Unfortunately, Iraq’s judicial institutions are not yet in a position to handle the case on their own, but every effort should be made to maximize the involvement of Iraqis. One solution would be a trial conducted in Iraq under United Nations auspices by a tribunal composed of eminent international and Iraqi judges.

      The capture of Saddam provides a much-needed piece of good news for President George W. Bush. Over the past eight months, the occupation of Iraq was fast becoming an exorbitantly expensive disaster. Guerrilla violence has been constant, leading American officers to adopt harsh repressive tactics. Reconstruction of the basic Iraqi infrastructure has been slow. The appointed Iraqi government has been ineffective. The reconstruction effort is tangled up in charges of overbilling. European allies have been repeatedly pushed away.

      Against this increasingly dismal backdrop come the heartening images of Saddam’s tired visage framed in a tangle of unkempt hair and beard, and of Iraqis dancing in the streets. That gives the Bush administration a rich opportunity to make a serious correction in its direction and tactics.

      Instead of driving away France, Germany, Russia and Canada with financial sanctions, the president can now start anew and create the room for compromise that will encourage these countries to help with the reconstruction and policing of Iraq. That, in turn, could help to create a sufficiently secure enough environment for the United Nations to come in and take over nation-building responsibilities, giving the occupation an international face. That would be the best possible backdrop to the trial of Saddam Hussein.

      Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 19:43:02
      Beitrag Nr. 10.424 ()
      Sunday, December 14, 2003
      War News for December 14, 2003 Draft

      Jede Meldung ein Link:
      http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/


      Bring `em on: Iraqi police officer wounded in RPG attack in Mosul.

      Bring `em on: Car bomb kills 17 at police station in Khaldiyah.

      Bring `em on: US soldiers kill Iraqi man in Tikrit.

      Saddam Hussein captured alive in Tikrit. At this point, I doubt if the capture of Saddam Hussein will have much immediate impact on the Iraqi insurgency. With 41 of the 55 designated Most Wanted of the Baathist Party either dead or already in custody, the former regime has been decapitated for some time and the insurgency has grown beyond the control of Saddam Hussein. Unless Saddam can be persuaded to swear allegiance to the IGC and he can command the insurgents to surrender, his capture is tactically irrelevant. That`s unlikely because L. Paul Bremer is no Arthur Macarthur and Saddam Hussein no longer has the authority of an Emilo Aguinaldo.

      Now where the fuck is Osama bin Laden, Lieutenant AWOL?

      Desertions from new Iraqi Army cause pay review. Only a neo-con would dream up a plan to underpay native soldiers supporting an occupational government then act surprised when the troops revolt.

      In Iraq, an Ayatollah the US shouldn`t ignore. Of course, Bremer is pretending he doesn`t exist. "The cleric, the most powerful leader in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was toppled, wants elections for a government that will assume control when the American occupation ends on July 1.…As now envisioned, the process orchestrated by Bremer is also weighted in favor of former exiles and the aging opposition leaders who were handpicked by the United States to be members of the Iraqi Governing Council and who have been unable to provide inspiring or popular leadership. Many Iraqis have said they are suspicious of the outcome of the political transition before it has even begun."

      Bremer was warned that disbanding the Iraqi Army was a "great mistake."

      US releases eight Arabs from detention in Iraq.

      More on Bechtel`s Iraqi school reconstruction. "The principal and his staff also say that Bechtel`s Iraqi subcontractors replaced usable floor tiles and 32 ceiling fans --school property -- and sold them off, leaving behind lower-quality replacements."

      High unemployment continues in Iraq. Welcome to the Bush economy, Abdul.

      Unemployment and lack of security fuels insurgency.

      Commentary

      Opinion: The soldiers of Bush`s War. "There was nobody from a neighborhood known for great comfort. The soldiers were from East New York and Jamaica. They worked in municipal jobs or the low end of construction. There were no lawyers, writers, doctors, investment bankers or business owners here. This is how America fights its wars, with no rich involved."

      Editorial: "Forget about what Iraq is going to be like after America is finished with that ancient, troubled land. I`m worried about what the experience will have done to America, at home and abroad. Sordid is a word that comes to mind to describe what`s happening. Enough has been said and written about the huge deceit that the Bush administration used to send American forces to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein and to occupy Iraq." If you read only one article on this page today, read this one.

      Opinion: Team Bush keeps dropping the ball on Iraq. "My complaint is a procedural one, about how the administration has carried out its policies. Watching one blunder after another, I can`t help but wonder: Can`t anybody here play this game?" The author is a neo-conservative founder of the Project for the New American Century and a strong supporter of Bush`s War.




      # posted by yankeedoodle : 2:03 AM
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 19:49:45
      Beitrag Nr. 10.425 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 22:32:08
      Beitrag Nr. 10.426 ()

      A combination photograph presented by the U.S. army at a news conference in Tikrit, shows the hole where U.S. troops captured ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003. When U.S. forces pulled Saddam Hussein from a hole in the ground behind a two-room shepherd`s hut, they were within sight of the former Iraqi president`s lavish palaces in his hometown of Tikrit.
      Army Tells of Pulling Bewildered Saddam from Hole
      Sun December 14, 2003 01:33 PM ET


      By Robin Pomeroy
      TIKRIT, Iraq (Reuters) - When U.S. forces pulled Saddam Hussein from a hole in the ground behind a two-room shepherd`s hut, they were within sight of the former Iraqi president`s lavish palaces in his hometown of Tikrit.

      "It is rather ironic that he was in a hole in the ground across the river from these great palaces he built where he robbed all the money from the Iraqi people," said Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno who commands the U.S. Army`s 4th Infantry Division.

      Saddam, on the run since U.S.-led forces toppled his government in April, was carrying a pistol but put up no defense as he was pulled out of the small dark pit that was covered with a piece of Styrofoam and a rug behind the two-room farm building.

      "He was just very much bewildered and he was taken away," Odierno told a news conference. U.S. forces are holding Saddam in an undisclosed location.

      The army cordoned off an area of 1.2 by 1.2 miles near Ad-Dawr, some nine miles down the Tigris River from Tikrit after receiving intelligence from a mid-level Iraqi source, Odierno said.

      "Over the last 10 days or so we have brought in about five to 10 members of these families who then were able to give us more information and finally we got the ultimate information from one of these individuals," he said.

      "He could have been hiding in a hundred different places, a thousand different places like this all around Iraq and it just takes finding the right person who will give you a good idea where he might be."

      The officers in charge of the operation knew they were on the trail of a big fish, but were not entirely sure they would find Saddam. "We were going after an HVT (high-value target), possibly HVT number one. We thought it was Saddam."

      The soldiers who pulled back the cover to find the cowering ex-president may not have known that, Odierno said.

      "What we normally tell them is we are going after an HVT ... So the soldiers knew there was somebody in there we were actually going after who was targeted, but my guess is they probably did not know who it was until we were finished."

      Major-General Ray Odierno told a news conference in Tikrit that Saddam, 66, who had been on the run since he was toppled in April, was "very disorientated" when he was found by troops during a raid at a farm at Ad-Dawr late Saturday.

      "He was just caught like a rat," Odierno said in one of Saddam`s palaces nearby. "It is rather ironic that he was in a hole in the ground across the river from these great palaces he built where he robbed all the money from the Iraqi people."

      Saddam`s capture, which triggered celebratory gunfire across Iraq, was a major coup for Bush, facing a campaign for re-election that was imperiled by military casualties in Iraq.

      "It marks the end of the road for him," Bush said in a televised address, adding Saddam would "face the justice he denied to millions."

      Bush told the Iraqi people: "You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again" -- but he warned it would not mean an immediate end to attacks that Washington has blamed on Saddam`s supporters and foreign Islamic militants.

      A U.S. military video showed Saddam, who faces a trial for his life before an Iraqi tribunal, looking haggard and sporting a bushy black and gray beard, meekly undergoing a medical examination after eight months on the run.

      RIVERSIDE PALACE

      The 4th Infantry Division has taken up residence in the sprawling riverside complex of palaces Saddam built in Tikrit to act as a base while hunting down senior members of the former Baathist government.

      Odierno said he was not surprised to find Saddam so close to the palace, but said he was probably constantly on the move around the region north of Baghdad known as the Sunni triangle.

      He showed reporters a military-style metal canteen containing $750,000 in cash, which was found in the hut. Nearby, troops found boats that could have been used to transport supplies or visitors, he added.

      "We have been to this area before. We have been down this road before. That doesn`t mean he has been there the whole time. My guess would be he has probably 20 to 30 of these all around the country," Odierno said.

      Troops arrested two other people who tried to flee the building, which consisted of a kitchen and a bedroom, strewn with new clothes -- evidence which, Odierno said, suggested Saddam may have arrived at the hut just hours before the military raid.

      No cell phones or other communications equipment were found at the hut, suggesting Saddam was not coordinating insurgency against the occupying forces, Odierno said.

      "I think he was more there for moral support and I don`t think he was coordinating the entire effort."
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 22:34:31
      Beitrag Nr. 10.427 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.12.03 22:45:41
      Beitrag Nr. 10.428 ()
      Published on Sunday, December 14, 2003 by Knight-Ridder
      Saddam an Important Symbol in the Arab World
      by Joyce M. Davis

      WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein may be under lock and key, but experts warn that the anger at the United States that he came to symbolize in the Arab world and Iran is far from contained. It still seethes in every capital from Rabat to Tehran, in the streets if not always in government.

      "To some extent, Saddam was a measure of the depth of the region`s alienation from the West," said James Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. "He symbolized the anger; he symbolized the divide."



      Yet with Saddam`s regime relegated to history, the danger is that Iraqis and other Arabs will see a common enemy in the Americans who destroyed him, and keep fighting to end their occupation of Iraq.


      Arab and Muslim anger is rooted in a long history of humiliation, by British colonial rule, by the creation of Israel, by poverty, by the failure of U.S.-backed governments to allow open democratic government and more broadly by the perceived inability of some Arab and Muslim countries to succeed in the modern world.

      When American troops invaded Baghdad last spring, Iraqis rushed to topple statues of Saddam. It was a pivotal, yet for some Arabs humiliating, moment in the region`s history.

      The rampaging Iraqi men didn`t rid themselves of Saddam`s evil; they needed American Marines to do that for them. Other Arab leaders didn`t send armies to liberate the Iraqi people; President Bush did. And even the feared Islamic jihadees (holy warriors), for all their threats of suicide bombs and terrorism, proved too weak to defeat the Arab leader they hated most.

      The fact that it was hated Israel`s friend and protector that toppled Saddam wasn`t lost on millions of Arabs.

      As a result, according to Suleiman Nyang, a political scientist at Howard University in Washington, although Saddam wasn`t beloved in the Arab world, his demise is seen in the Middle East and beyond as another sign of Arab weakness and degradation at the hands of the West.

      "If it is a humiliation for the Arab people, it is one that Arabs themselves are accountable for," he said. "It is unfortunate that a guy like Saddam Hussein should have remained in power for so long. The Arab people don`t fight for their freedom the way other people fight for freedom."

      And any gratitude for what the United States did expired quickly, as attacks against American troops picked up speed amid popular discontent at the sight of U.S. soldiers patrolling Iraqi streets and neighborhoods.

      "It is a very painful experience that the Arabs are undertaking," said Clovis Maksoud, a former Arab League ambassador to the United States and the United Nations. "There will be a lot of soul searching, a period of ferment. Profound changes are going to take place."

      Saddam`s regime was built on the mid-20th-century version of Arab nationalism, a secular, socialist ideal espoused by former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who ruled Egypt from 1956 to 1970, and the late Syrian President Hafez Assad, who ruled from 1970 until his death in June 2000, succeeded by his son Bashar.

      By emphasizing their common language, culture and heritage, Saddam`s Baath Party proposed that Arabs could achieve self-determination, independence from the West and a revival of their once-glorious civilization. Arab nationalism was the antithesis of Islamic militancy, which promoted unity under the banner of the Muslim faith.

      Like other secular Arab leaders, Saddam despised and feared the growing popularity of Islamic movements. He was especially leery of the Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq, whom he feared might launch an Islamic revolution like the one that took over neighboring Iran.

      Even before Saddam`s downfall, many Arabs had abandoned the movement he represented. Their secular leaders had proved to be despots, more concerned about holding on to power, enriching their cronies and crushing all efforts at democracy. Their powerful patron, arms supplier and role model, the Soviet Union, had collapsed.

      Arab nationalists had proved unable to recapture Arab land from Israel; and some, such as Egypt`s Anwar Sadat and Jordan`s King Hussein, even had abandoned the struggle and signed peace treaties with the Jewish nation.

      In the eyes of many Arabs, their secular leaders had become little more than puppets of successive foreign powers, from the British colonialists to the Soviets to the American invaders.

      Increasingly, Arabs turned to a new movement to redress their grievances: militant Islam.

      After Saddam`s defeat in the first Persian Gulf War, he tried to recast himself as a born-again Muslim, summoning the faithful to support him in his self-proclaimed jihad against Western imperialism. The pose won him little support from devout Muslims, who didn`t believe that the same Saddam who had brutally crushed religious parties and routinely violated nearly every principle of Muslim life had suddenly become a defender of Islam.

      Yet with Saddam`s regime relegated to history, the danger is that Iraqis and other Arabs will see a common enemy in the Americans who destroyed him, and keep fighting to end their occupation of Iraq.

      © 2003 Knight-Ridder

      ###
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 00:17:38
      Beitrag Nr. 10.429 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 00:18:26
      Beitrag Nr. 10.430 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Text of President Bush`s Speech



      The Associated Press
      Sunday, December 14, 2003; 12:43 PM


      President Bush`s remarks Sunday on the capture of Saddam Hussein, as provided by the White House:

      Good afternoon. Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30 p.m. Baghdad time, United States military forces captured Saddam Hussein alive. He was found near a farmhouse outside the city of Tikrit, in a swift raid conducted without casualties. And now the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he denied to millions.

      The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free Iraq. It marks the end of the road for him, and for all who bullied and killed in his name. For the Baathist holdouts largely responsible for the current violence, there will be no return to the corrupt power and privilege they once held. For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.

      And this afternoon, I have a message for the Iraqi people: You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again. All Iraqis who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side. The goals of our coalition are the same as your goals - sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great culture, and for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life.

      In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over. A hopeful day has arrived. All Iraqis can now come together and reject violence and build a new Iraq.

      The success of yesterday`s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator`s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.

      I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated.

      We`ve come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action. And that is our strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this war is won.

      May God bless the people of Iraq, and may God bless America. Thank you.


      © 2003 The Associated Press
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 09:52:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.431 ()
      Only the Iraqis can decide if this is to be a happy ending
      Malcolm Rifkind
      Monday December 15, 2003
      The Guardian

      Saddam Hussein`s capture is not the end, nor the beginning of the end, of the trauma of Iraq. But it is the end of the beginning, and its significance is difficult to exaggerate.

      First and foremost is its psychological importance to the people of Iraq. However obvious it might have been to those with a logical frame of mind that Saddam`s regime had been overthrown and was never to return, that was not how it has been seen by millions of Iraqis.

      He had dominated their lives for so many years, his power seemed so pervasive and his punishments so severe that he was deemed by many to have almost supernatural qualities. They needed irrefutable proof of his death or capture to know that he could no longer pose a threat to their lives. Now that is what they have. Their future may still be uncertain. But now they know that he will not be part of it.

      As delighted (and relieved) will be George Bush and Tony Blair. They know that politics is about symbols as well as about substance. Saddam`s continuing freedom, together with that of Osama bin Laden, reflected on American competence, on the support the coalition was receiving from the people they had liberated, and on whether the Iraq war was truly irreversible. Now the job of nation building can proceed without any spectres interfering in the feast.

      The immediate question will be: what is to happen to Saddam? It is imperative that he be brought to trial and that this be done by the Iraqis and not by the Americans, nor by any international court. There is little doubt that Washington recognises that it is to the Iraqi people that Saddam must answer for his crimes. That will not only be justice; it will also have an important cathartic effect on Iraq, helping to cleanse the country of the terrible effects of his long years of power.

      Nuremberg was, rightly, different. The Nazis had done even greater crimes to the wider world than they had to their own people. That might have been Saddam`s ambition, and, of course, the Kuwaitis and the Iranians had suffered badly from his aggression. But the real trauma was in Iraq itself, and it is the Iraqis who must punish him.

      A more complex question is the effect that his capture will have on the insurgency in Iraq that has been plaguing the Americans since April. More Americans have died in attacks over the past few months than during the campaign itself. And most of those responsible for these attacks have not been fighting in order to return Saddam to power. The fact that Saddam was captured in an isolated village, without a body of protectors, suggests that he might already have lost any meaningful influence over his erstwhile supporters.

      Most of these insurgents are Iraqis resentful of the American occupation of their country. Others are Arabs or Islamic extremists from other countries who have moved into Iraq, seeing it as an opportunity to wage jihad against the west. These elements will have no incentive to end their violence. Whether they are forced to will, to a large extent, depend on how the Americans respond to the new situation following Saddam`s capture.

      One possibility is that the US will see it as a vindication of the war and of their policy up to now. They may wish to revert to a very gradual return of real power to Iraqis, while a new constitution is drafted, civil society is constructed, the economy rebuilt and political institutions introduced. Until a few weeks ago that was the US intention, but the intensification of violence led to that strategy being abandoned and a promise that power would be transferred to an interim government by the middle of next year.

      President Bush must resist any suggestion that with Saddam`s arrest he can now relax, prolong the timetable and expect a new level of Iraqi agreement for an occupation that would last for years rather than months. If anything, the reverse is true. While Saddam was at large, many Iraqis, whatever their public statements, were relieved that the presence of the US military guaranteed that the old regime could not fight its way back to power. Now that threat has finally disappeared, Iraqis will be less persuaded than ever that they need American tutelage in order to educate them how to govern themselves.

      The Iraqis are a proud people but, unlike in Afghanistan, they are also well-educated and have massive oil reserves that give them the prospect of economic self-sufficiency. However delighted they might be to be relieved of Saddam`s tyranny, they feel humiliated by foreign occupation, and they should not be expected to be any less anti-American than the rest of the Arab world.

      If the Americans ignore these sensitivities then the insurgents, with Saddam out of the way, will seem even more like freedom fighters to ordinary Iraqis. If, however, the Americans respond generously and use these events to justify an even earlier departure of occupying forces, the dissidents will quickly lose any popular support.

      It is not just the future of Iraq that is at stake. Bush`s re-election next year depends on Americans feeling that they are not facing a new Vietnam. Saddam`s capture will boost Bush`s prestige, but that will be shortlived if the violence continues and, even more, if it escalates. Bush should use this new opportunity to transfer effective power in Iraq from the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld, and hand the political process over to Colin Powell and his colleagues. The imperatives are now political and diplomatic, and whatever the Pentagon`s other strengths, nation building is not one of them.

      For Tony Blair these events are also good news. We will hear, again and again, that the nightmare of the Iraqis would not be over if the war had not happened. That is irrefutable, though it will have to be pointed out to him, equally often, that this view would justify war against Zimbabwe, North Korea and Cuba as well.

      The end result of the second Gulf war will not be a liberal, capitalist Iraq that is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Such unreservedly happy endings are not, sadly, the lot of man. New, tough, authoritarian Iraqis will emerge to take over the levers of power. If Iraq is lucky, it will end up like Egypt; if unlucky, it will be like Syria. One thing, however, remains clear. It will be the Iraqis, and not the Americans or the British, who will decide.

      · Sir Malcolm Rifkind was the Conservative defence secretary from 1992-95 and foreign secretary from 1995-97


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 09:53:47
      Beitrag Nr. 10.432 ()
      Resistance to occupation will grow
      Sami Ramadani
      Monday December 15, 2003
      The Guardian

      The joy was deep, but the pain, too, was overwhelming as I remembered relatives and friends who lost their lives opposing Saddam`s tyranny or in his wars.

      I remember my disappeared and dearest school friend, Hazim, whom I hugged goodbye in 1969 at the canteen of the college of medicine in Baghdad. I never saw him again. Although only 15, Hazim had the courage to distribute anti-Ba`athist leaflets at our school in Baghdad within months of the 1963 CIA-backed coup that brought the Ba`athists to power. I remember, too, my dear friend Ghassan, who died in a hospital in Canada after many years in exile. He didn`t live to see the moment he had waited so long for.

      But here it was, at last: Saddam`s surrender in ignominy. However, this delightful moment - enjoyed by all the Iraqis I spoke to as the news of his capture was breaking - was soured by the fact that it was Iraq`s newly appointed tyrant, Paul Bremer, doing the boasting: "Ladies and gentlemen... we got him!"

      What will the Americans do with their captive? Is Saddam going to face a trial? Will the truth of his mass murders and crimes come out? Will the trial shed light on how the US backed him and supplied him with chemical weapons? Will it reveal how the US encouraged him to launch the war on Iran, causing the death of a million Iranians and Iraqis? Will the trial go into the alliances with and support for Saddam by so many of members and parties now in the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council? The dark clouds over Iraq haven`t lifted yet.

      Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by the US-led unjust and immoral war, and the death toll continues to rise as innocent people are being killed in US military raids, bombardments and Sharon-style collective punishment, and harmed by the depleted uranium shells used by the US-led forces. So at this moment of joy, other questions keep intruding: Who is going to try Bremer, Bush, Rumsfeld and Blair? Will Iraq ever be free?

      One thing I do know: Saddam was not leading the resistance from his dirty little hole. This was acknowledged yesterday by an unlikely source - Sherif bin Ali, a relative of the last Iraqi king, Faisal II, and a strong supporter of the US-led invasion. "The truth must be spelt out," he said, "Saddam has nothing to do with the resistance. His cowardly surrender confirms what we have known all along... It is time to negotiate with the resistance. It is time to call on the resistance to declare a truce."

      It has suited the US to blame Saddam for the resistance to the occupation and to use him as a pretext for the continued occupation. But Bin Ali is merely confirming what the CIA and US Congress sources have recently confirmed: that there are no less than 15 organisations involved in the resistance, which enjoys widespread support. A recent CIA report admitted that, "there are thousands in the resistance - not just a core of Ba`athists", and concluded that "the resistance is broad, strong and getting stronger".

      Saddam`s surrender is likely to embolden the political forces in Iraq which, until now, feared that a call for the immediate end to the occupation might help Saddam return to power.

      The largely peaceful resistance in Baghdad and the so-called Shia areas of Iraq will also attract greater attention. In the past two weeks, trade union leaders in Baghdad and the south have been arrested. The occupation authorities shamelessly used Saddam`s 1987 law barring trade union activity within state institutions. But such opposition will be difficult to suppress. This week in Hilla, a so-called Shia city, a militant but peaceful mass insurrection succeeded in deposing Iskander Jawad Witwit, the US-appointed governor. The thousands who besieged the governor`s office called for free elections to replace him.

      Now that Saddam is no longer a bogeyman to scare the people with, trade union and other mass opposition is likely to increase, complementing and coalescing with the armed opposition.

      One demand is now uniting nearly all Iraqis, from armed resisters to trade unionists to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Elections! And it is the one demand to which the US has refused to agree, because it has accurately assessed the likely result. That is also why it swiftly moved to stop elections of city mayors and why, a few weeks ago, it sacked the elected dean of Baghdad university after his outspoken criticisms of the occupation authorities.

      Saddam`s ignominious end is likely to weaken US-led efforts to divide the Iraqis along sectarian and national lines. In memory of all those who died resisting Saddam`s tyranny, the peaceful and armed resistance is likely to intensify and attract greater support across the world, including that of the American people.

      · Sami Ramadani was a political refugee from Saddam`s regime and is a senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University

      · sami.ramadani@londonmet.ac.uk


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 09:55:38
      Beitrag Nr. 10.433 ()
      American families wake up to hope that troops will return home soon
      Gary Younge in New York
      Monday December 15, 2003
      The Guardian

      The air was thick with snowflakes and the murmur of incredulity in New York yesterday morning as early risers with eager tongues spread news of Saddam`s capture.

      Clutching newspapers that were already out of date, people stopped and listened in on the conversations of the better-informed and then went home to turn on the television.

      "He`s looking crazy," said James DuPrez, buying cigarettes while he described the video footage of Saddam on television to those waiting in the queue behind him. "Hair`s crazy, beard`s crazy, eyes crazy. Just plain crazy."

      "Everybody is so happy," beamed the laundry woman on Brooklyn`s De Kalb Avenue. And while it is true that you could not find anyone who believed that catching Saddam was a bad idea, views differed across the country on just how much of a good thing it was and what should happen now.

      Mike Harden, 20, who was working out at a 24 Hour Fitness centre in Dallas, had a different idea. "I think they should kill him or torture him like he tortured all the people over there," he said.

      "They found him where he belongs: in a hole," said a regular at Tillies coffee shop in Brooklyn. "They should take him into central Baghdad and let the people loose on him."

      Michael Gonzales, 48, of Miami Beach, said: "It`s great they found him, but I would rather have seen him found dead. He can still instigate trouble for the Iraqis."

      "I would like to say `eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth` but that`s not right," said Rachel Quarshie, 37, of Dallas.

      "I`d like to just see him break bricks for the rest of his life."

      Few were in any doubt that it would make a difference on the home front, where support for the war had started to climb last week after a steep decline through the autumn.

      "I`m not a Republican, you know, but I would applaud George Bush for going out of his way to make sure the country can feel more safe," said Dewayne Bryant, a front-desk clerk at Fairfield Inn in Dallas.

      On the phone-ins and talkboards, contributions swung from one end of the spectrum to the other. Some demanded apologies from France and Germany, while others called for Mr Bush to be next. "Take that! all you Saddam-loving liberals," wrote one respondent when the Chicago Tri bune asked readers to write in with their thoughts. "And it only cost the lives of 200+ more soldiers since April, too!" wrote the next.

      On army bases there was a feeling that the news might result in loved ones coming home sooner rather that later.

      Adrienne Pittard, the wife of a 4th Infantry Division soldier, Zeke, was woken by her mother with the information. "I was just really excited because now that they got him maybe my husband will be coming home a little sooner," she said.

      But peppered among the tub thumping ("Way to go, America! Our soldiers are the best," wrote one contributor to the Tribune`s message board) others were reminded of unfinished business.

      "I don`t think he could have been fighting much of a war from that hole so I don`t know if it`s going to make much difference with the war," said Mr DuPrez.

      "I hope it does. But they still got to find that other guy who started this whole thing right here," he added, referring to Osama bin Laden and flicking his head in the vague direction of a depleted Manhattan skyline hidden by a thick blanket of snow.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 09:56:55
      Beitrag Nr. 10.434 ()
      John Sutherland
      If you are going to con the biggest supermarket in the world, do it on a day when there is lots of other news

      Monday December 15, 2003
      The Guardian

      The day after Thanksgiving is, for the American retail trade, "Black Friday". That`s when the end-of-year sales stampede starts, tills jingle merrily, and the shopkeeper`s bottom line moves from the red into the black. The Wal-Mart chain kicked off their selling season this year with a "Blitz Sale" on DVD players at the giveaway price of $29 (£16.60). But hurry, hurry, they warned: supplies were limited.

      When the doors of the Wal-Mart Super-Centre in Orange City, Florida opened at 6am on November 28 there was a shopping riot. Patricia VanLester (41 years old, and in good store-fighting shape) was first in line. Little good it did her. She was trampled underfoot by the thundering herd of rampaging bargain hunters behind her.

      When VanLester`s unconscious body was scraped up from the floor by the paramedics (who themselves had to fight through the ruck of sale-maddened shoppers) she was still grimly clutching her DVD player. Say not the struggle naught availeth. She and her booty were airlifted to the nearest trauma centre.

      It was a slow news day and the "trampled in Wal-Mart" story made the headlines. Comedians joked about it. The chattering classes chattered about it. Columnists and clergymen pontificated. America was, they concluded, sick: civility was dead. "After this appalling display in Florida of consumerism and callous corporate culture," thundered one pundit, "Black Friday stands as a social barometer of man`s indifference to man."

      If VanLester was socially barometric, so was Wal-Mart. The small convenience store founded by Sam Walton in Arkansas in 1962 has grown to become the biggest corporation in the world. Four of the world`s 10 richest people are Waltons. Wal-Mart is bigger than the opposition and always cheaper. Much cheaper. An average shopping basket - whether clothes, hardware, home supplies or groceries - runs a third less than at any rival store. Unsurprisingly, rivals tend not to stay in business very long. How does Wal-Mart do it? Principally by buying in bulk and having their wares manufactured in developing countries where workers get a cent for every dollar an American would demand.

      However, there were fewer turkeys on southern Californian tables this Thanksgiving. Since early November, supermarket staff have been picketing their stores. Ostensibly the dispute is about health benefits. The underlying reason is fear that Wal-Mart is going to be allowed to open up grocery outlets in Los Angeles - after which the supermarket workers won`t have any employer to strike against.

      Wal-Mart pays its workers half what the three existing supermarket chains (Vons, Albertsons and Ralphs) offer. So low are Wal-Mart`s shopfloor wages that they instruct their workers (strictly non-unionised) on how to apply for food stamps: 70% qualify.

      There is, of course, another side to the issue. Granted, Wal-Mart sucks diversity out of communities. Granted, its stores are soulless boxes. None the less it lowers the cost of living for the 30% of Americans who live on the poverty line. At Wal-Mart poor people (even Wal-Mart employees) can afford steak, warm winter clothes and DVD players. Given the choice, Americans of all classes shop there. You`ll see Mercedes in the parking lot. The only difference is the rich folks buy juicier cuts and classier electronics.

      The trampling episode turned out to be murkier than it first appeared. Wal-Mart leaked some information. Ms VanLester, it emerged, was no "Wal-Martyr" but a "Frequent Filer". She was a former Wal-Mart employee. Since 1978 she has received a small fortune in legal claims - typically for taking painful tumbles in stores. Given her record, she could dive for her country at the Athens Olympics. Nine recent claims filed against Wal-Mart alone had cost the firm thousands.

      The lady is either extremely accident-prone or a con artist. If the latter, she broke the first rule of her profession. Never do your scam on a slow news day.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 09:59:03
      Beitrag Nr. 10.435 ()
      Musharraf narrowly escapes assassination attempt
      By Phil Reeves
      15 December 2003


      Pakistani authorities were last night investigating whether the country`s military ruler, President Pervez Musharraf, was the target of an assassination attempt after a bomb detonated on a road minutes after his motorcade passed.

      The explosion happened about a mile from the Islamabad International Airport as the president was returning home after a visit to the southern city of Karachi. Witnesses said the blast occurred at a bridge close to a military compound. Sheharyar Khan, whose car was stopped at a roadblock shortly afterwards, said: "As the president`s motorcade passed, a huge explosion blew up the bridge."

      A military spokesman, Maj Gen Shaukat Sultan, said Mr Musharraf was "safe and sound". He said it was a "terrorist act", but only an investigation would determine whether it was aimed at the Pakistani leader.

      However, another official confirmed that the president, who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999, was the target of the bomb. An Interior Ministry official told the Associated Press: "Definitely, definitely, it was meant for President Musharraf."

      Police and soldiers cordoned off and searched the area. There was a large crater in the road where the bomb exploded.

      Mr Musharraf has long been considered at risk of attack, despite the strength of support he has from Pakistan`s military and intelligence services. He has angered Pakistan`s militant Islamist groups by backing the United States afterthe 11 September terrorist attacks, for which he was rewarded with substantial financial aid from abroad. But that also made him many enemies at home, especially among the religious militant groups.

      He has led a nationwide hunt for al-Qa`ida suspects that has resulted in the capture of hundreds of guerrillas, many of whom have been handed over to the US. They include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected planner of the 11 September attacks who was caught in Rawalpindi earlier this year. The hunt is continuing for al-Qa`ida leader Osama bin Laden, believed by some to be hiding near the Afghan-Pakistan border.

      There have been at least two prior attempts to kill the Pakistani leader. In October a court convicted three Islamic militants for attempting to assassinate him in Karachi last year, handing them 10-year jail terms. The militants belonged to al-Almi faction of Harkat-ul Mujahideen, a group also accused of planning a suicide attack last year outside the US consulate in Karachi which killed 12 Pakistanis.

      Yesterday`s developments were watched closely in neighbouring India. Relations between India and Mr Musharraf reached a low point last year, when the countries massed their armies along the border, but tensions have eased in recent months.

      Talat Masood, a former senior defence official, said it was too early to say who was behind yesterday`s attack, but the most likely suspects were extremist religious forces opposed to Mr Musharraf`s policy on Afghanistan and his efforts to reform Islamic schools that have become hotbeds of radicalism.

      Mr Masood said: "I think these are the forces who want to eliminate him."

      The explosion happened on the same day that Indonesia`s President, Megawati Sukar-noputri, arrived in Pakistan on an official visit; she is to meet with Mr Musharraf today. Pakistan and Indonesia are the world`s two largest Muslim nations.Pakistan has been ruled by its military for more than half of its 56 years. Mr Musharraf held legislative elections in Pakistan last year, but remains in charge of the country, having amended the constitution before the vote to give him the power to dismiss parliament and the prime minister.

      In 1999, the former prime minister Nawaz Sharif refused to allow an aircraft Mr Musharraf was on to land;the military then seized control of the country and arrested Mr Sharif.

      15 December 2003 09:58
      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:02:16
      Beitrag Nr. 10.436 ()
      Saddam`s Capture Will Not Stop The Relentless Killings From Insurgents

      Robert Fisk in Baghdad

      15 December 2003: (The Independent) "Peace" and "reconciliation" were the patois of Downing Street and the White House yesterday. But all those hopes of a collapse of resistance are doomed. Saddam was neither the spiritual nor the political guide to the insurgency that is now claiming so many lives in Iraq - far more Iraqi than Western lives, one might add - and, however happy Messrs Bush and Blair may be at the capture of Saddam, the war goes on.

      In Fallujah, in Ramadi, in other centres of Sunni power in Iraq, the anti-occupation rising will continue. The system of attacks and the frighteningly fast-growing sophistication of the insurgents is bound up with the Committee of the Faith, a group of Wahabi-based Sunni Muslims who now plan their attacks on American occupation troops between Mosul and the city of Hilla, 50 miles south of Baghdad. Even before the overthrow of the Baathist regime, these groups, permitted by Saddam in the hope that they could drain off Sunni Islamic militancy, were planning the mukawama - the resistance against foreign occupation.

      The slaughter of 17 more Iraqis yesterday in a bomb attack on a police station - hours after the capture of Saddam, though the bombers could not have known that - is going to remain Iraq`s bloody agenda. The Anglo-American narrative will then be more difficult to sustain. Saddam "remnants" or Saddam "loyalists" are far more difficult to sustain as enemies when they can no longer be loyal to Saddam. Their Iraqi identity will become more obvious and the need to blame "foreign" al-Qa`ida members all the greater.

      Yet the repeated assertions of US infantry commanders, especially those based around Mosul and Tikrit, that most of their attackers are Iraqi rather than foreign, show that the American military command in Iraq - at least at the divisional level - knows the truth. The 82nd Airborne captain in Fallujah who told me that his men were attacked by "Syrian-backed terrorists and Iraqi freedom-fighters" was probably closer to the truth than Major Ricardo Sanchez, the US commander in Iraq, would like to believe. The war is not about Saddam but about foreign occupation.

      Indeed, professional soldiers have been pointing this out for a long time. Yesterday, for example, a sergeant in the 1st Armoured Division on checkpoint duty in Baghdad explained the situation to The Independent in remarkably blunt words. "We`re not going to go home any sooner because of Saddam`s getting caught," he said. "We all came to search for weapons of mass destruction and attention has now been diverted from that. The arrest of Saddam is meaningless. We still don`t know why we came here."

      There are groups aplenty with enthusiasm to attack the Americans but who never had any love for Saddam. One example is the Unification Front for the Liberation of Iraq, which was anti-Saddam but has now called on its supporters to fight the American occupation. In all, The Independent has identified 12 separate guerrilla groups, all loosely in touch with each other through tribal connections, but only one could be identified as comprising Saddam loyalists or Baathists.

      When the first roadside bomb exploded in the centre of a motorway median at Khan Dari in the summer, killing one soldier, it was followed by identically manufactured mines - three mortars wired together - in both Kirkuk and Mosul. Within a week, another copy-cat mine exploded near US troops outside Nasiriyah. Clearly, groups of insurgents were touring the country with explosive ordnance capabilities, organised, possibly, on a national level.

      In many areas, men identifying themselves as resistors have openly boasted that they are joining the new American-paid police forces in order to earn money, gain experience with weapons and gather intelligence on their American military "allies". Exactly the same fate that befell the Israelis in Lebanon, where their proxy Lebanese South Lebanon Army militia started collaborating with their Hizbollah enemies, is now likely to encompass the Americans.

      The same men who are going to carry on attacking the Americans will, of course, be making a secret holiday in their heart over the capture of Saddam. Why, they will argue, should they not rejoice at the end of their greatest oppressor while planning the humiliation of the occupying army which seized him?

      Copyright: The Independent
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:03:07
      Beitrag Nr. 10.437 ()
      "The Tyrant Is Now A Prisoner"

      By Robert Fisk in Baghdad

      15 December 2003: (The Independent) So they got Saddam at last. Unkempt, his tired eyes betraying defeat; even the $750,000 in cash found in his hole in the ground demeaned him.

      Saddam in chains; maybe not literally, but he looked in that extraordinary videotape yesterday like a prisoner of ancient Rome, the barbarian at last cornered, the hand caressing the scraggy beard. All those ghosts - of gassed Iranians and Kurds, of Shias gunned into the mass graves of Karbala, of the prisoners dying under excruciating torture in the villas of Saddam`s secret police - must surely have witnessed something of this.

      "Ladies and gentlemen - we got him," crowed Paul Bremer, the American proconsul in Iraq. "This is a great day in Iraq`s history. For decades, hundreds of thousands of you suffered at the hands of this cruel man. For decades, this cruel man divided you against each other. For decades, he threatened to attack your neighbours. These days are gone for ever ... the tyrant is a prisoner," he said.

      Tony Blair said: "Saddam has gone from power, he won`t be coming back. That the Iraqi people now know, and it is they who will decide his fate."

      It took just 600 American soldiers to capture the man who was for 12 years one of the West`s best friends in the Middle East and for 12 more years the West`s greatest enemy in the Middle East. In a miserable 8ft hole in the mud of a Tigris farm near the village of Ad-Dawr, the president of the Iraqi Arab Republic, leader of the Arab Socialist Baath party, ex-guerrilla fighter, invader of two nations, friend of Jacques Chirac and a man once courted by President Ronald Reagan, was found hiding, almost certainly betrayed by his own comrades and now destined - if the Americans mean what they say - to a trial for war crimes on a Nuremberg scale.

      For weeks, US forces had prowled the countryside along the Tigris river, arresting former Baathist functionaries, questioning former bodyguards, blasting away at the guerrillas of Tikrit and Samarra and Mosul and killing civilians along with them.

      But yesterday was, beyond a doubt, an American military victory - if, and only if, this ends the insurgency against the Americans.

      In Baghdad, the occupation authorities showed, over and over again, those images - far more haunting for his victims than for us Westerners - of the Beast of Baghdad.

      If they were Che Guevara`s eyes, the beard belonged to Fidel Castro. There was even a kind of crazed Karl Marx in the face. Brutal, of course. They all are, the Middle East`s dictators, in a place where cruelty can be praised as strength. Tribal, most certainly.

      But one impression there was that conquered all others. This was revolution gone to seed.

      The ironies were extraordinary. In his youth, in 1959, Saddam had tried to assassinate an Iraqi president and, with a bullet in his leg, had hidden in the Tikrit countryside not far from the place where, almost half a century later - this weekend - he was captured by the Americans. He had - the video images at least suggested this - tried to return to his youth. Saddam the Monster had reverted to Saddam the Warrior, fighting against overwhelming odds, an Iraqi patriot rather than an Iraqi dictator.

      "Talkative and co-operative," the Americans called him after his capture. I`m not surprised. Suddenly, he was important again, a war criminal to be sure - but no longer a man in a hole. And it was difficult yesterday, looking at those pictures of the Lion of Iraq - for this is what he called himself - to remember how royally he had been toasted in the past.

      This was the man who was the honour guest of the city of Paris when Mr Chirac was mayor and when the French could see the Jacobins in his bloody regime. This was the man who negotiated with the UN secretary generals Perez de Cuellar and Kofi Annan, who had chatted over coffee to none other than the now US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, who had met Ted Heath and Tony Benn and a host of European statesmen.

      But is it really the end of the nightmare? Certainly, the broken creature in the American videotape was not going to run the movie backwards. His days were, as they say, over. There was a kind of relief in his face. The drama had ended. He was alive, unlike his tens of thousands of victims. Was a volume of memoirs in his fatigued mind? The final indignity of having his hair yanked by an American doctor might have been assuaged by the memory of all those French surgeons who once attended to his family`s needs. For no Iraqi doctor ever dared operate on the Tikritis.

      Sure, you could watch the gunmen celebrating yesterday, the shoals of bullets soaring into the night sky over Baghdad. The killer of their fathers, brothers, sons, wives, mothers, was at last in chains.

      I was amid the slums of Sadr City - once Saddam City - when a cascade of rifle fire swept the streets. I was sitting on the concrete floor of a Shia cleric who had been run down and killed by an American tank, amid Iraqis with no love for the Americans, and the gunfire grew louder. A boy walked from the room and ran back with news that Iraqi radio was announcing the capture of Saddam. And faces that had been dark with mourning - that had not smiled for a week - beamed with pleasure.

      The gunfire grew louder, until clusters of bullets swarmed into the air amid grenade bursts. In the main street, cars crashed into each other in the chaos.

      But this was momentary joy, not jubilation. There were no massive crowds on the boulevards of Baghdad, no street parties, no expressions of joy from the ordinary people of the capital city.

      For Saddam has bequeathed to his country and to its would-be "liberators" something uniquely terrible: continued war. And there was one conclusion upon which every Iraqi I spoke to yesterday agreed.

      This bedraggled, pathetic man with his matted, dirty hair, living in a hole in the ground with three guns and cash as his cave-companions - this man was not leading the Iraqi insurgency against the Americans. Indeed, more and more Iraqis were saying before Saddam`s capture that the one reason they would not join the resistance to US occupation was the fear that - if the Americans withdrew - Saddam would return to power. Now that fear has been taken away. So the nightmare is over - and the nightmare is about to begin. For both the Iraqis and for us.

      I met him once, almost a quarter of a century ago. We shook hands before a Baghdad press conference in which he tried to explain the finer points of binary fission. He was keen, at the time, to develop nuclear weapons. He wore vast double-breasted suits at the time, the kind that Nazi leaders once wore, overlarge, floppy coats that gleamed too much. All I can remember was that his hands were cold and damp.

      Copyright: The Independent
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:04:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.438 ()
      We Caught The Wrong Guy
      By William Rivers Pitt
      t r u t h o u t | Perspective

      Monday 15 December 2003

      Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, was captured near a farmhouse in Tikrit in a raid performed by other employees of the American federal government. That sounds pretty deranged, right? Perhaps, but it is also accurate. The unifying thread binding together everyone assembled at that Tikrit farmhouse is the simple fact that all of them – the soldiers as well as Hussein – have received pay from the United States for services rendered.

      It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the monster under your bed lo these last twelve years, was paid probably ten thousand times more during his time as an American employee than the soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in the Reagan White House were generous with your tax dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse for the better part of a decade.

      If this were a Tom Clancy movie, we would be watching the dramatic capture of Hussein somewhere in the last ten minutes of the tale. The bedraggled dictator would be put on public trial for his crimes, sentenced to several thousand concurrent life sentences, and dragged off to prison in chains. The anti-American insurgents in Iraq, seeing the sudden futility of their fight to place Hussein back into power, would lay down their arms and melt back into the countryside. For dramatic effect, more than a few would be cornered by SEAL teams in black facepaint and discreetly shot in the back of the head. The President would speak with eloquence as the martial score swelled around him. Fade to black, roll credits, get off my plane.

      The real-world version is certainly not lacking in drama. The streets of Baghdad were thronged on Sunday with mobs of Iraqi people celebrating the final removal of a despot who had haunted their lives since 1979. Their joy was utterly unfettered. Images on CNN of Hussein, looking for all the world like a Muslim version of Charles Manson while getting checked for head lice by an American medic, were as surreal as anything one might ever see on a television.

      Unfortunately, the real-world script has a lot of pages left to be turned. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, reached at his home on Sunday, said, “It’s great that they caught him. The man was a brutal dictator who committed terrible crimes against his people. But now we come to rest of story. We didn’t go to war to capture Saddam Hussein. We went to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons have not been found.” Ray McGovern, senior analyst and 27-year veteran of the CIA, echoed Ritter’s perspective on Sunday. “It’s wonderful that he was captured, because now we’ll find out where the weapons of mass destruction are,” said McGovern with tongue firmly planted in cheek. “We killed his sons before they could tell us.”

      Indeed, reality intrudes. The push for war before March was based upon Hussein’s possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 1,000,000 pounds of sarin gas, mustard gas, and VX nerve gas, along with 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents, uranium from Niger to be used in nuclear bombs, and let us not forget the al Qaeda terrorists closely associated with Hussein who would take this stuff and use it against us on the main streets and back roads of the United States.

      When they found Hussein hiding in that dirt hole in the ground, none of this stuff was down there with him. The full force of the American military has been likewise unable to locate it anywhere else. There is no evidence of al al Qaeda agents working with Hussein, and Bush was forced some weeks ago to publicly acknowledge that Hussein had nothing to do with September 11. The Niger uranium story was debunked last summer.

      Conventional wisdom now holds that none of this stuff was there to begin with, and all the clear statements from virtually everyone in the Bush administration squatting on the public record describing the existence of this stuff looks now like what it was then: A lot of overblown rhetoric and outright lies, designed to terrify the American people into supporting an unnecessary go-it-alone war. Said war made a few Bush cronies rich beyond the dreams of avarice while allowing some hawks in the Defense Department to play at empire-building, something they have been craving for more than ten years.

      Of course, the rhetoric mutated as the weapons stubbornly refused to be found. By the time Bush did his little ‘Mission Accomplished’ strut across the aircraft carrier, the occupation was about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of the Iraqi people. No longer were we informed on a daily basis of the “sinister nexus between Hussein and al Qaeda,” as described by Colin Powell before the United Nations in February. No longer were we fed the insinuations that Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11. Certainly, any and all mention of weapons of mass destruction ceased completely. We were, instead, embarking on some noble democratic experiment.

      The capture of Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad, feeds nicely into these newly-minted explanations. Mr. Bush and his people will use this as the propaganda coup it is, and to great effect. But a poet once said something about tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow.

      “We are not fighting for Saddam," said an Iraqi named Kashid Ahmad Saleh in a New York Times report from a week ago. "We are fighting for freedom and because the Americans are Jews. The Governing Council is a bunch of looters and criminals and mercenaries. We cannot expect that stability in this country will ever come from them. The principle is based on religion and tribal loyalties," continued Saleh. "The religious principle is that we cannot accept to live with infidels. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, said, `Hit the infidels wherever you find them.` We are also a tribal people. We cannot allow strangers to rule over us."

      Welcome to the new Iraq. The theme that the 455 Americans killed there, and the thousands of others who have been wounded, fell at the hands of pro-Hussein loyalists is now gone. The Bush administration celebrations over this capture will appear quite silly and premature when the dying continues. Whatever Hussein bitter-enders there are will be joined by Iraqi nationalists who will now see no good reason for American forces to remain. After all, the new rhetoric highlighted the removal of Hussein as the reason for this invasion, and that task has been completed. Yet American forces are not leaving, and will not leave. The killing of our troops will continue because of people like Kashid Ahmad Saleh. All Hussein’s capture did for Saleh was remove from the table the idea that he was fighting for the dictator. He is free now, and the war will begin in earnest.

      The dying will continue because America’s presence in Iraq is a wonderful opportunity for a man named Osama bin Laden, who was not captured on Saturday. Bin Laden, it has been reported, is thrilled by what is happening in Iraq, and plans to throw as much violence as he can muster at American forces there. The Bush administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this Iraq invasion, not one dime of which went towards the capture or death of the fellow who brought down the Towers a couple of years ago. For bin Laden and his devotees, Iraq is better than Disneyland.

      For all the pomp and circumstance that has surrounded the extraction of the former Iraqi dictator from a hole in the ground, the reality is that the United States is not one bit safer now that the man is in chains.

      There will be no trial for Hussein, at least nothing in public, because he might start shouting about the back pay he is owed from his days as an employee of the American government. Because another former employee of the American government named Osama is still alive and free, our troops are still in mortal danger in Iraq.

      Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His capture means nothing to the safety and security of the American people. The money we spent to put the bag on him might have gone towards capturing bin Laden, who is a threat, but that did not happen. We can be happy for the people of Iraq, because their Hussein problem is over. Here in America, our Hussein problem is just beginning. The other problem, that Osama fellow we should have been trying to capture this whole time, remains perched over our door like the raven.

      -------

      William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New York Times and international best-selling author of three books - "War On Iraq," available from Context Books, "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available from Pluto Press, and "Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism," available in August from Context Books.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:11:12
      Beitrag Nr. 10.439 ()

      Coalition troops discovered Saddam Hussein hiding in this hole, which was below a walled compound on a farm located in the town of Ad Dwar, about 10 miles from his hometown of Tikrit


      Before the news conference, soldiers from the Fourth Infantry Division set up pictures of the house where Saddam Hussein was found. The $750,000 that was seized during the arrest appears below.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:12:13
      Beitrag Nr. 10.440 ()
      December 15, 2003
      Bearing Questions, 4 New Iraqi Leaders Pay Hussein a Visit
      By IAN FISHER

      BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 14 — The wild gray beard was gone, and he sat on a metal army cot, just awake from a nap, in socks and black slippers. He was not handcuffed. He did not recognize all his visitors, but they recognized him. That was the purpose of the visit: to help confirm that he was, in fact, Saddam Hussein.

      What came next in the Sunday afternoon meeting, according to people in the room, was an extraordinary 30 minutes, in which four new leaders of Iraq pointedly questioned the nation`s deposed and now captured leader about his tyrannical rule. Mr. Hussein, they said, was defiant and unrepentant but very much defeated.

      "The world is crazy," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a Governing Council member in the room on Sunday after Mr. Hussein was captured near his hometown, Tikrit. "I was in his torture chamber in 1979, and now he was sitting there, powerless in front of me without anybody stopping me from doing anything to him. Just imagine. We were arguing, and he was using very foul language."

      The carefully managed event gave the four men who had spent decades opposing the ruler they regard as an oppressor of their country a rare chance to confront him. Though he spoke forcefully, the haggard Mr. Hussein was now the prisoner, and his opponents seemed to gain some legitimacy as leaders through the meeting in which they said they had called him to task on behalf of their nation.

      Ahmad Chalabi, a council member and head of the Iraqi National Congress who was also in the room, said: "He was quite lucid. He had command of his faculties. He would not apologize to the Iraqi people. He did not deny any of the crimes he was confronted with having done. He tried to justify them."

      After Mr. Hussein`s capture in an eight-foot-deep hole that one council member said was filled with "rats and mice," the four leaders were taken by helicopter on Sunday afternoon to a military base, at a location they would not disclose. In addition to Mr. Rubaie and Mr. Chalabi, two others were aboard: Adnan Pachachi, a council member who was the foreign minister before Mr. Hussein came to power, and Adel Abdel Mahdi, who represents the Shiite religious body, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

      Two American leaders in Iraq were there too: L. Paul Bremer III, the American civilian administrator of Iraq; and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top military commander in Iraq. The room was small, Mr. Rubaie said, and General Sanchez asked the men if they would like to see him through a window or by camera.

      "We said, `No, we want to talk to him,` " Mr. Rubaie said.

      Aides to the men differed slightly about what happened next. One said Mr. Hussein, who they said had just woken up, did not recognize any of his visitors. Another said he recognized Mr. Chalabi and asked him to introduce the others.

      "Saddam turned to Pachachi and said: `You were the foreign minister of Iraq. What are you doing with these people?` " one aide said.

      Mr. Rubaie said he had asked the first question which, he said, was met with a brutal and dismissive joke. He said he had asked why Mr. Hussein had killed two leading Shiite clerics, Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Sadr in 1980 and Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr in 1999.

      The word "sidr" means "chest" in Arabic, and Mr. Hussein replied, "As sidr or ar rijl?" That translates as: "The chest or the foot?"

      The men then asked Mr. Hussein about events in his nearly 35 years in power that officials in the United States and elsewhere cite in accusing the former ruler. They cited these examples:

      ¶Asked about the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja in 1988, in which an estimated 5,000 people were killed, Mr. Hussein said, according to his visitors, that this was the work of Iran, at war with Iraq at the time.

      ¶Asked about the mass graves of tens of thousands of Iraqis uncovered since Mr. Hussein was toppled from power in the American-led offensive this spring, Mr. Rubaie said Mr. Hussein answered: "Ask their relatives. They were thieves, and they ran away from the battlefields with Iran and from the battlefields of Kuwait."

      ¶Asked why he invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking the American-led assault on Iraq the next year, he said Kuwait was rightfully a part of Iraq.

      "He was not remorseful at all," Mr. Chalabi said. "It was clear he was a complete narcissist who was incapable of showing remorse or sympathy to other human beings."

      Mr. Chalabi said Mr. Hussein had also suggested that he was behind the recent wave of attacks against American soldiers in Iraq since his defeat.

      "He said, `I gave a speech, and I said the Americans can come to Iraq but they can`t occupy it and rule it,` " Mr. Chalabi said. "He said, `I said I would fight them with pistols, and I have.` "

      "He didn`t say it directly, but he was trying to take credit for it," Mr. Chalabi said.

      At a news conference on Sunday evening, Mr. Pachachi said Mr. Hussein had tried to justify himself by saying Iraqis needed a tough ruler.

      "He tried to justify his crimes by saying that he was a just but firm ruler," he said. "Of course our answer was he was an unjust ruler responsible for the deaths of thousands of people."

      Throughout the meeting, Mr. Hussein was calm but often used foul language. Mr. Pachachi said he looked "tired and haggard." Mr. Bremer and General Sanchez, they said, did not speak, though Mr. Chalabi said Mr. Hussein was "deferential and respectful to the Americans."

      "You can conclude from that some aspect that he was reconciled to his situation," he said.

      "The most important fact: Had the roles been reversed, he would have torn us apart and cut us into small pieces after torture," Mr. Chalabi said. "This contrast was paramount in my mind, how we treated him and how he would have treated us."

      Mr. Rubaie said: "One thing which is very important is that this man had with him underground when they arrested him two AK-47`s and did not shoot one bullet. I told him, `You keep on saying that you are a brave man and a proud Arab.` I said, `When they arrested you why didn`t you shoot one bullet? You are a coward.` "

      "And he started to use very colorful language," he said. "Basically he used all his French."

      "I was so angry because this guy has caused so much damage," Mr. Rubaie added. "He has ruined the whole country. He has ruined 25 million people."

      "And I have to confess that the last word was for me," he continued. "I was the last to leave the room and I said, `May God curse you. Tell me, when are you going to be accountable to God and the day of judgment? What are you going to tell him about Halabja and the mass graves, the Iran-Iraq war, thousands and thousands executed? What are you going to tell God?` He was exercising his French language."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:14:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.441 ()
      December 15, 2003
      The Capture of a Dictator

      The United States achieved its most important military objective in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad when it captured Saddam Hussein. President Bush rightly claimed yesterday that it was a critical milestone toward the reconstruction of Iraq. The image of Mr. Hussein, bedraggled and bearded, being humbled before Iraqi leaders, some of whom had survived his torture chambers, was a tonic of relief. One indisputable fact in the bloody and divisive saga of Iraq is that this man ranked with the world`s most vicious dictators. His crimes are monstrous. Hundreds of thousands of his people were murdered or tortured at his order and some may have been brutalized by his own hands.

      We hope that his arrest will reduce organized violence against American troops, although Mr. Bush himself was careful to say yesterday that hostilities are not over. We do not know how involved Mr. Hussein was in these attacks against American and allied occupation forces, or against Iraqis who cooperated with them. But the dictator`s capture should offer Iraqis some relief from the lingering fear that somehow he might return to power and exact revenge on those who cooperated with the United States.

      Though the Hussein regime ended with the fall of Baghdad on April 9, many frustrating puzzles remain. These include the question of what happened to Iraq`s unconventional weapons programs in recent years and what was going on in that shadowed regime in the last weeks before the war, when the Iraqi leader seemed reluctant to take steps that might have stayed the president`s hand.

      It would be good if some of those questions could now be resolved. And it is critical that the dictator be given a fair and open trial to exact justice for his crimes, to give some solace to the people he terrorized and to give pause to other despots. The trial must be above any suspicion that it is merely an exercise in retribution or propaganda. While every effort should be made to maximize Iraqi involvement, Iraq`s judicial institutions are too weak to handle the case. Although last week`s creation of an Iraqi war crimes tribunal was a promising step, we would suggest this trial be conducted in Iraq under United Nations auspices by international and Iraqi judges. A tribunal picked by Americans would lack legitimacy.

      Mr. Hussein`s capture leaves the United States facing the same profound questions about how best to create a stable and democratic government in Iraq. The capture does not diminish the need for Washington to find ways to broaden the international nature of the occupation, and to put the nation-building efforts under the United Nations. The ultimate measure of success will be an Iraq held together by consent, not force, with its resources dedicated to development, not weapons. Iraqis will then finally be free of the malign legacy of Saddam Hussein.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:18:07
      Beitrag Nr. 10.442 ()
      December 15, 2003
      OP-ED COLUMNIST
      Another Battle for Bush
      By BOB HERBERT

      There are two things I hope will emerge from the capture of Saddam. Like so many others, I hope the effort in Iraq becomes much more widely shared, internationalized, which would be good not just for Iraq and the U.S. but for the short- and long-term stability of the entire planet.

      My second hope is that the Bush administration will begin to apply the kind of focus, energy and resources that it used in Iraq to the economic difficulties of ordinary working families here in America.

      If you just went by recent headlines, you`d have the impression that the U.S. economy is as bright as the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center. The G.D.P. is surging. The stock market, retail sales and corporate profits are up. So is productivity.

      The front-page headline in The Daily News on Thursday said, "Santa Comes Early to Wall Street." It was accompanied by a photo of Philip Purcell, the chairman and C.E.O. of Morgan Stanley, who was described by The News as "the first titan to cash in at the end of a banner year."

      The article cited several executives who were expected to receive year-end bonuses in the $12 million to $17 million range.

      The Bush crowd will tell you that these economic goodies are bound to trickle down. Jobs will become plentiful. Pay envelopes will fatten. Nirvana is just around the corner.

      The problem with this scenario is that there are no facts to back it up. The closer you look at employment in this country, the more convinced you become that the condition of the ordinary worker is deteriorating, not improving.

      The problem is that we are not creating many jobs, and the quality of those we are creating is, for the most part, not good. Job growth at the moment is about 80,000 per month, which is not even enough to cover the new workers entering the job market.

      And when the Economic Policy Institute compared the average wage of industries that are creating jobs with those that are losing jobs, analysts found a big discrepancy. The jobs lost paid about $17 an hour, compared with $14.50 an hour for those being created.

      The Bush administration and its corporate allies give the impression that they would welcome a big surge in employment that would raise the wages and quality of life for all working Americans and their families. But their policies tell an entirely different story. A fierce and bitter war — not bloody like the war in Iraq, but a war just the same — is being waged against American workers. And so far, at least, the Bush administration has been on the wrong side.

      The war is being fought on several fronts. For example, after years of shipping manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. to absurdly low-wage venues, we are now also exporting increasing numbers of technical and professional jobs.

      Another example: Despite the loss of more than two million jobs over the past three years, and the fact that nearly nine million Americans are officially unemployed, the Bush administration has refused to support a Christmastime extension of crucial unemployment benefits.

      Worse, the administration is trying to implement a regulation that would deny overtime protection for more than eight million men and women.

      Efforts to get an increase in the pathetic $5.15 minimum wage continue to fail. The benefits from productivity increases that have resulted primarily from an incredible squeeze that employers have put on workers are not being shared with workers. Health and pension benefits are in a downward spiral.

      And so on.

      The way to fight these and other abuses is for employees to organize. But the right of workers to form unions and bargain collectively has been under assault for years. A thriving specialty of the legal profession is the advice it gives to corporations about how to frustrate and intimidate (and fire when necessary) those impudent workers who want to form unions. That approach has been bolstered by the full force and power of the federal government, which puts struggling workers at a hopeless disadvantage.

      A front-page headline in The Times on Dec. 6 said, "Employers Balk at New Hirings, Despite Growth."

      That`s the reality for workers. The corporations would like to hire as few people as possible, keep wages as low as possible, provide as few benefits as possible and work the workers as long and as hard as possible.

      The president of the United States should be allied with working families in this struggle.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:23:46
      Beitrag Nr. 10.443 ()
      December 15, 2003
      OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
      Saddam`s Past, Iraq`s Future
      By PHEBE MARR

      WASHINGTON — For decades Iraq was held together by the outsized personality of Saddam Hussein and his grandiose vision of Iraq`s role in the Arab world. But while Mr. Hussein has passed from the scene, his vision of Iraq may linger. The future of Iraq may well depend on how Iraqis and their American overseers respond to the dream Mr. Hussein created but never realized.

      The capture of Mr. Hussein is a hopeful development for Iraq and the rest of the world. For Americans, it is a great military success that may help quiet international criticism of their role in Iraq. For Iraqis, it is an occasion for joy and relief that allows them to go about the task of remaking their nation with far less fear of reprisal.

      What kind of state the Iraqis will build remains to be seen. But with Mr. Hussein`s capture, a decades-long Arab experiment with "republican" dynasties may be at an end. Such governments were the outgrowth of revolutionary leaders and army officers who overthrew hereditary monarchies after World War II, only to entrench their families or cronies in power for another generation. No single authoritarian leader is likely to emerge to take Mr. Hussein`s place in the power struggle now under way.

      Elsewhere the practice continues. In Syria the government is headed by Bashar al-Assad, son of the Baath general who won a struggle with his ideological adversaries in 1970 and ruled Syria for 30 years until his death in 2000, and then arranged for his son to succeed him. In Egypt, the first successful Arab nationalist leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, ruled for 18 years and then kept leadership in the military by passing on power to Anwar el-Sadat and then, after his death in 1981, to Hosni Mubarak, both military officers. Mr. Mubarak has refused to name a vice president and is thought to be grooming his son for succession.

      Of these revolutionary dynasties, Mr. Hussein`s was the worst. It is unquestionably gone for good, and his ignominious end may help discredit the others. If the new government in Iraq is not successful in stabilizing power, however, it could give authoritarianism a new lease on life.

      Likewise, Mr. Hussein`s capture also symbolizes the passing of the cold-war era of revolutionary Arab nationalism. The wellspring of this ideology was a commitment to pan-Arab unity. Gradually this pan-Arabism gave way to state-centered interests in countries like Egypt, Iraq and Syria, although the rhetoric of pan-Arabism continues to inflame politics in the Middle East.

      In Iraq after 1968, Mr. Hussein used this ideology to build a powerful totalitarian state, backed by oil resources. However, he soon modified the ideology to suit his purposes: he emphasized making Iraq a leader of the Arab world. Seduced by his own power and rhetoric, Mr. Hussein soon began the overreach that brought on a succession of disasters: the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980`s; the Gulf war and a decade of sanctions and economic decline in the 1990`s; and in 2003 a loss of Iraq`s independence. His humiliating capture at the hands of an occupying force is a monumental symbol of the failure of this system.

      But Mr. Hussein and his Baath rule left a third legacy in Iraq — and here the prognosis for an end to the era is murkier. For decades, the Iraqi state was dominated by an Arab Sunni minority, cloaked in a Baath vision that appealed to wider elements of the Iraqi population. This vision was based not only on an Arab identity and an Iraqi role in the Arab world, but on a secular model of modernization.

      In its early years in power, the Baath Party oversaw rapid economic development, a broad distribution of wealth, greater social mobility and the fostering of an educated middle class. While these goals came at a high cost, they still resonate with many in the educated middle class on which the regime lavished so much attention. Not surprisingly, this middle class came to consider itself a privileged elite, entitled to govern.

      This class, already displaced, is still there — as is its feelings of alienation. Some of those barred from power (the army, the upper reaches of the party) may have joined the insurgency, but others, used to running the government and its social institutions, are waiting to see what happens. Some way must be found to give these Iraqis a stake in the new order. Otherwise their frustration and ability to create mischief will remain.

      Iraq now faces the task of creating a new vision for itself — in fact, a whole new cultural and political identity to replace the old Arab nationalist ideal. This will not be easy. One such vision, familiar but never successful, calls for an inward-looking identity that focuses on Iraqi citizens. This vision would de-emphasize Iraq`s role in the Arab world. It could also mean better relations with Iraq`s two large non-Arab neighbors, Turkey and Iran.

      Such a vision would focus on developing Iraq`s resources, encouraging prosperity and bolstering Iraq`s weakened middle class. It appeals to both Shiites and Kurds, but here, too, Mr. Hussein has left a mixed legacy. Domination of government, especially in the last decade, by a narrow group of Sunni clansmen has alienated Shiites and Kurds. The Kurds now have an alternative vision of self-rule and an identity that encompasses Kurdish communities in Turkey, Iran and Syria. Their self-rule, which has been ongoing for more than a decade in northern Iraq, makes it more difficult to reintegrate the Kurds into the Iraqi body politic.

      The Shiites, meanwhile, have gone through a period of religious revival, encouraged by the Islamic revolution in Iran. Some Shiites (as well as some Sunnis) will want more emphasis on religion and Islamic law in the new Iraq.

      Whatever new vision emerges, it will have to take account of a radical redistribution of power in the new Iraqi state. The 25-member Iraqi Governing Council, which includes a majority of Shiites, numerous Kurds and an Arab Sunni minority of five, may already be helping to define this new structure. The Arab nationalist orientation in the media and the education system will also have to change.

      But if the new order is to succeed, a new definition of what it means to be Iraqi must be put forth — by Iraqis. Given the fractious nature of Iraq`s leadership, the divisions in its society and competing visions of its future, this will be difficult and time-consuming. If Iraq`s new governing structures cannot deliver services and security, Iraqis will not support it.

      Mr. Hussein has gone, but not the class he helped create. It is out of power, but not yet dead. Also alive is a strong current of nationalism that is manifest in a long-standing desire for independence and a dislike of foreign influence — to say nothing of foreign rule. These thwarted aspirations will be aided and abetted by disgruntled Arabs in neighboring states opposed to the war and occupation. Without an effective transition to new government and the inclusion of middle-class elements of the Arab Sunni population, this class will not only continue to feed the insurgency but may hinder the creation of a new Iraq.

      The capture of Mr. Hussein may signify the end of one era but it does not yet mean the beginning of a new one. A democratic and responsive Iraq, with power diffused among various communities and focused mainly on the welfare of its citizens, would not only be a positive development but a revolutionary one.

      There should be few illusions. Desirable as the goal may be, it will take years to achieve, and the outcome will depend not only on Iraqis, but on American skill, understanding and staying power. Otherwise, the capture of Saddam Hussein may be little more than the latest chapter of a long-running tragedy.


      Phebe Marr is author of "The Modern History of Iraq."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:29:55
      Beitrag Nr. 10.444 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:45:24
      Beitrag Nr. 10.445 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Despite Capture, Poll Indicates Wariness on Iraq
      President`s Ratings Rise, but 9 of 10 Respondents Anticipate Major Challenges Ahead

      By Claudia Deane
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Monday, December 15, 2003; Page A07


      Americans greeted the news of Saddam Hussein`s capture with measured optimism while acknowledging the breadth of the challenges still facing the United States in Iraq, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted yesterday.

      At least initially, the capture did not do much to change the overall shape of opinion on the war in Iraq.

      Roughly 2 in 3 respondents said Hussein`s capture would be at least somewhat helpful in ending attacks on U.S. troops and contributing to Americans` long-term security, although only 15 to 23 percent thought the arrest would "help a great deal." Larger percentages were hopeful the news would help restore stability to Iraq.

      Nine in 10 Americans said big challenges still face the United States in Iraq, with fewer than 1 in 10 saying Hussein`s capture would resolve the hurdles facing U.S. troops. Eight in 10 rejected the notion that with the former Iraqi president in custody, the United States should withdraw its forces from the country.

      President Bush received immediate credit for his handling of the situation in Iraq, with his approval rating in that area jumping to 58 percent, from 48 percent in mid-November. In a separate survey conducted yesterday by CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 8 in 10 Americans said finding Hussein was a "major achievement."

      Bush`s overall job approval rating in the Post-ABC News survey was 57 percent, 4 percentage points up from a survey conducted last week and the same as this time last month.

      The public remains deeply divided as to whether "the war with Iraq was worth fighting," with 53 percent agreeing it was, and 42 percent saying it was not -- unchanged from last month.

      Evaluations of the war against terrorism remained steady in the Post-ABC survey. About two-thirds of Americans said the war on terror is going at least fairly well, three percentage points higher than when they were last asked in late October.

      Meanwhile, more Americans say the war in Iraq is going worse than expected (27 percent) than say it is going better than expected (14 percent). The majority said it is turning out much the way they had anticipated.

      By evening yesterday, more than 9 in 10 poll respondents had heard the news of Hussein`s capture, which was widely broadcast throughout the day.

      The poll suggests the public is somewhat split on the complicated question of Hussein`s future. A narrow majority (52 percent) said he should be put on trial in a United Nations-sponsored forum, compared with 39 percent who think he should stand trial in Iraq. By a 2 to 1 margin, Americans said if Hussein, 66, were convicted of war crimes he should face the death penalty rather than life in prison.

      The Post-ABC poll was conducted yesterday afternoon and evening among a randomly selected sample of 506 adults nationwide. The margin of sampling error for results is plus or minus five percentage points.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company

      Washington Post-ABC News Poll: The Capture of Saddam Hussein
      Monday, December 15, 2003



      This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone December 14, 2003, among 506 randomly selected adults nationwide. Margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 5 percentage points. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single day represent other potential sources of error in this poll. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, PA.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/st…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:51:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.446 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      End of the Beginning




      Monday, December 15, 2003; Page A30


      HE WAS FOUND, appropriately enough, crouching in a hole. Saddam Hussein, who will be remembered above all for the hundreds of thousands of people he condemned to mass graves, surrendered in ignominy from a miserable pit near the Tigris River. Unlike many of the mass murderers who preceded him, from Hitler to Pol Pot, he will probably live to stand trial for his crimes. "He will," President Bush said yesterday, "face the justice he denied to millions." For that, Iraqis can thank the skilled U.S. soldiers and intelligence analysts who managed to locate the former dictator Saturday night and arrest him without firing a shot. They can also begin to think with greater confidence about an Iraq where brutality and privation give way to the tolerant, modernizing and prosperous country that most people want.

      The bitter insurgency that U.S. forces have faced in Saddam Hussein`s home region will not cease with his arrest, as a car bombing yesterday quickly demonstrated. Many of those who fight the American-sponsored provisional authority do so for reasons that extend well beyond loyalty to Saddam Hussein. It is even possible that some who oppose the occupation, especially in the Shiite population, will feel more impetus to attack American targets now that there is no risk they will be re-empowering their former oppressor. But many more Iraqis, freed from lingering fear that the dictator could return, may be ready to think about their place in the new order and join in the task of rebuilding.

      That is the greatest gain the capture may offer U.S. authorities and the Iraqi Governing Council: another chance to win over a part of the population until now excluded from the political transition, especially in the "Sunni Triangle" north and west of Baghdad. American administrator L. Paul Bremer yesterday called on supporters of the former regime to "come forward in a spirit of reconciliation and hope, lay down their arms and join . . . their fellow citizens in the task of building a new Iraq." It will be important that U.S. and interim Iraqi leaders follow up on that message in the coming days, looking for ways to involve more representatives of the Sunni population in reconstruction projects and in the selection of a sovereign government.

      In the United States, Saddam Hussein`s arrest quickly prompted calls by Democratic presidential candidates for a renewed effort to "internationalize" the occupation with foreign troops and administrators from the United Nations. That`s a step we have long supported. But some of the Democratic rhetoric conveyed the worrying implication that the dictator`s elimination should facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The point of building a broader international coalition is not, as Howard Dean suggested, to replace American soldiers with those of other nations but to make more achievable the goal of stabilizing Iraq under a democratic government. The capture of Saddam Hussein was an important step toward that goal and cause for celebration. But it must not be taken as the turning point for the American mission. It is more a new starting post for a project whose greatest challenges still lie in the future.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:55:39
      Beitrag Nr. 10.447 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      Hussein Exposed


      By Jim Hoagland

      Monday, December 15, 2003; Page A31


      Saddam Hussein`s ignominious surrender captured the essence of his quarter-century of misrule over Iraq: He was exposed as a blustering fraud who robbed his people to line his own pockets and to satisfy his monumental vanity. In the end he could not escape his own personality or the pursuing U.S. Army.

      For the Iraqi dictator and for those who challenged his word and murderous ambition, the battle has always been intensely personal.

      Four members of Iraq`s Governing Council questioned Hussein at Baghdad International Airport on Sunday. After some shouting, they asked why he had killed a renowned Shiite cleric and other individuals. This was not an abstract moment about justice and freedom or distant U.S. politics for them. This was about the millions of lives the monster before them had taken, ruined or forced to be spent in exile.

      Hussein responded with heavy sarcasm and personal disdain, according to one person present. "He showed that he learned nothing and forgot nothing" while on the run, this person said.

      The dictator made a play on words with the name of one victim. He did for the interrogators the number he always trotted out for journalists in Baghdad interviews: You don`t know what you are talking about. That was no cleric. That was a terrorist. The hundreds of thousands found in mass graves were thieves. I am a firm but just ruler. You are scum.

      Right. My own question is for the troops who found this great Arab warrior cowering in a 6-by-8-foot dirt hole with a pistol he didn`t use and $750,000 in pocket money. Guys, did he still have the diamond cuff links? Or had the Mighty and Munificent One pawned them to finance his flight?

      The dictator flashed his tailored cuffs and diamond-encrusted jewelry at me in an encounter in 1975 as he described in minute detail his commitment to Arab socialism. He went on to deny that the atrocities I had seen in Kurdistan a few weeks earlier could have happened. When I reported both atrocities and atmospherics, Hussein sent word that he was outraged -- that I had mentioned the cuff links.

      After that it was hard to take him seriously as a political leader, though not as a gangster and homicidal tyrant. While other Arab leaders had their opponents killed when they felt threatened, Hussein killed to keep in practice. The scene that unfolded near Tikrit on Sunday underlined the fact that he ordered the killings and the looting of an entire nation from the safety and obscene luxury of his palaces, not from any battlefront.

      This was no reincarnated Saladin, as his publicists claimed, nor some brave, modernizing Arab nationalist holding off the Iranian hordes, as gullible Arab journalists and rulers -- and a pair of American presidents named Reagan and Bush -- believed in the 1980s. Hussein was the ultimate sadistic gangster, who cloaked his clan`s brutality and greed in a fascistic pseudo-ideology called Baathism.

      His being caught "like a rat," in the words of Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, will help puncture the myth that the terrorist insurgency being led by Hussein`s Baathist remnants represents a heroic form of Iraqi or Arab nationalism. The campaign they wage is a rear-guard attempt to regain privilege and domination by a small group of Sunni Arabs, who have used death and destruction as their only tools of governance and now of rebellion.

      Necessary but probably not sufficient is the best way to think of the role that Hussein`s capture will have in ending the insurgency. His failure to resist, though his sons went down fighting, will help dismantle the myth factor in the rebellion. "People are already saying the sons died like men and he gave up like a coward," a Baghdad resident told me in a telephone conversation.

      "Why didn`t you fight?" one Governing Council member asked Hussein as their meeting ended. Hussein gestured toward the U.S. soldiers guarding him and asked his own question: "Would you fight them?"

      The Sunnis must now reconcile themselves to sharing power rather than fearfully hedging their political bets, which they did while Hussein was at large. That kind of reconciliation is the only path toward a genuine Iraqi nationalism that does not treat the Kurds and Shiites as exotic afterthoughts in Iraqi politics.

      The trials of Hussein and his closest associates should be conducted in Iraq by Iraqis, with international support and guidance inspired by the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals. A transparent and fair legal process for these brutes should become the cornerstone of the new Iraq that will emerge from the dismantling of the intellectual and emotional fraud that was Baathism.

      jimhoagland@washpost.com



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 10:58:52
      Beitrag Nr. 10.448 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      A Step Toward Mission Accomplished


      By David Ignatius

      Monday, December 15, 2003; Page A31


      AMMAN, Jordan -- The moment that television screens showed the wild, bearded face of Saddam Hussein, looking more like a homeless tramp than a pitiless dictator, it was as if a voodoo spell had been broken.

      Even after American tanks rolled into their country last March, many Iraqis remained frightened that Hussein would somehow return. During interviews, they would suddenly fall silent when they noticed someone nearby with ties to the old regime. Until we know that Hussein is really gone, they would say, we can`t be sure the nightmare is over.

      On Sunday, Iraqis and the world could see that the Saddam Hussein era had finally ended. As soon as television footage of the captured leader was broadcast, cheers erupted in the streets of Baghdad and even from Iraqi journalists assembled for the news conference announcing the former leader`s capture.

      The pictures went out live on al-Jazeera to the Arab world, and for once no amount of spin could blunt the images: Arab viewers could see jubilant Iraqis parading in the streets, honking horns, passing out sweets, firing guns in the air in celebration.

      The Arab stations seemed to be avoiding any conspiracy theories about doctored footage. Anyone could see that the face was Hussein`s, although unshaven he looked more like the Unabomber than a former president whose very name had terrorized his country.

      An Iraqi named Mustafa Yacoub sat in the barber chair at the Anwar for Men barbershop in Amman on Sunday as al-Jazeera showed reruns of the hideaway where Hussein had been captured. "I think this is the end of this gentleman," Yacoub said with a smile. Now, he said, there would be "no more fear."

      But even Yacoub, a Shiite who had been imprisoned by Hussein, seemed embarrassed by how shabby the former ruler looked and by the fact he hadn`t put up any resistance. "I felt shame," he said. "This is very bad, after 34 years of controlling the country." Yacoub said he wished Iraqis had captured Hussein, rather than Americans.

      Most Iraqis will probably feel a similarly complex mix of emotions as they contemplate the idea of Hussein in American captivity -- relief, shame, hope, dread. And his trial could be a painful, divisive moment for the country, bringing back old hatreds and calls for vengeance.

      For the United States, Hussein`s capture offers a new start for an Iraq policy that in recent weeks looked as if its wheels were coming off. It shows the power and panache of the U.S. military, whose competence many Iraqis had begun to doubt.

      But the Bush administration shouldn`t be popping too many champagne corks in the expectation that resistance to U.S. occupation will now end. Instead, resistance could actually intensify. "Now it`s no longer about Saddam bouncing back into power, it`s about resisting U.S. occupation," said political analyst Labib Kamhawi.

      The Baath Party, free of Hussein`s baggage, may also find new energy. That was the theme of a recent series of articles in the Arabic daily Al-Quds al-Arabi by Salah Omar Ali, a prominent Baathist rival of Hussein. Certainly, the Baathists won`t just fade away without Hussein. They will continue doing what they know best, which is running a ruthless, clandestine organization.

      A key challenge for the U.S.-led coalition will be to renew its outreach to Sunni Muslims, who in recent months have moved toward open revolt. "The Americans need to be talking to the Sunni tribal leadership, to reassure them that the Sunnis are an active and equal part of the new Iraq," argues Ali Shukri, a former top Jordanian military officer who for decades helped manage Jordan`s secret contact with Iraqi tribal leaders.

      Many Iraqis are likely to react to Sunday`s news by saying it`s time for the Americans to go. "It might make the Iraqis more demanding toward the Americans," says Adnan Abu Odeh, a former adviser to the late King Hussein. That`s a demand that the Americans can use to their advantage.

      Saddam Hussein`s capture should help the United States press ahead with the transfer of power to the Iraqis. Now it`s up to the Iraqis to come together, resolve their differences and build a new country. If the Bush administration is wise, it can use Hussein`s capture to create the conditions for a free Iraq and then begin extracting itself honorably.

      The United States` responsibility for rebuilding Iraq is far from over. But with the butcher of Baghdad behind bars, it should be easier for America to someday honestly announce: "Mission accomplished."


      ">davidignatius@washpost.com



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 11:15:15
      Beitrag Nr. 10.449 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 11:17:01
      Beitrag Nr. 10.450 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 11:22:16
      Beitrag Nr. 10.451 ()


      O.J. FINDS SADDAM

      Nabs Iraqi Madman During Search for `Real Killers`


      In a surprising denouement to his eight-year-long search for the "real killers" of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, former NFL great O.J. Simpson today found former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole in Tikrit.

      Appearing in a joint press conference in Baghdad with U.S. officials, the Heisman Trophy winner told of the long, twisted road that led him from Florida to Iraq in search of the elusive real killers, but wound up leading him to Saddam Hussein instead.

      "I realized Iraq would be the perfect place for the real killers to hide, since everybody there was looking for Saddam and nobody was looking for the real killers," Mr. Simpson said. ""Man, that`s where I`d hide.""

      After booking a plane ticket to Baghdad, Mr. Simpson began searching holes up and down the country looking for the real killers, little knowing he would reel in the biggest fish of all.

      But when Mr. Simpson stumbled upon the Iraqi madman hiding in a hole in Tikrit, he almost did not recognize the bedraggled Saddam: "For a second there I thought it was Glen Campbell."

      Mr. Simpson, who told reporters that the search for his wife`s real killers would resume tomorrow in Boca Raton, today received a reward from U.S. administrator Paul Bremer in the amount of $25 million for his role in the historic capture.

      Mr. Simpson said he had not yet decided what to do with the money, but was considering buying five gallons of gasoline from the Halliburton Company.

      **** WATCH ANDY BOROWITZ ON CNN`S "AMERICAN MORNING" ****
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 11:48:34
      Beitrag Nr. 10.452 ()
      Published on Sunday, December 14, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
      Jessica Lynch Captures Saddam; Ex-Dictator Demands Back Pay from Baker
      by Grag Palast

      Former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein was taken into custody yesterday at 8:30p.m. Baghdad time. Various television executives, White House spin doctors and propaganda experts at the Pentagon are at this time wrestling with the question of whether to claim PFC Jessica Lynch seized the ex-potentate or that Saddam surrendered after close hand-to-hand combat with current Iraqi strongman Paul Bremer III.

      Ex-President Hussein himself told US military interrogators that he had surfaced after hearing of the appointment of his long-time associate James Baker III to settle Iraq`s debts. "Hey, my homeboy Jim owes me big time," Mr. Hussein stated. He asserted that Baker and the prior Bush regime, "owe me my back pay. After all I did for these guys you`d think they`d have the decency to pay up."

      The Iraqi dictator then went on to list the "hits" he conducted on behalf of the Baker-Bush administrations, ending with the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, authorized by the former US secretary of state Baker.

      Mr. Hussein cited the transcript of his meeting on July 25, 1990 in Baghdad with US Ambassador April Glaspie. When Saddam asked Glaspie if the US would object to an attack on Kuwait over the small emirate`s theft of Iraqi oil, America`s Ambassador told him, "We have no opinion.... Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America."

      Glaspie, in Congressional testimony in 1991, did not deny the authenticity of the recording of her meeting with Saddam which world diplomats took as US acquiescence to an Iraqi invasion.

      While having his hair styled by US military makeover artists, Saddam listed jobs completed at the request of his allies in the Carter, Reagan and Bush administrations for which he claims back wages:

      1979: Seizes power with US approval; moves allegiance from Soviets to USA in Cold War.

      1980: Invades Iran, then the "Unicycle of Evil," with US encouragement and arms.

      1982: Reagan regime removes Saddam`s regime from official US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

      1983: Saddam hosts Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad. Agrees to "go steady" with US corporate suppliers.

      1984: US Commerce Department issues license for export of aflatoxin to Iraq useable in biological weapons.

      1988: Kurds in Halabja, Iraq, gassed.

      1987-88: US warships destroy Iranian oil platforms in Gulf and break Iranian blockade of Iraq shipping lanes, tipping war advantage back to Saddam.

      In Baghdad today, the US-installed replacement for Saddam, Paul Bremer, appeared to acknowledge his predecessor Saddam`s prior work for the US State Department when he told Iraqis, "For decades, you suffered at the hands of this cruel man. For decades, Saddam Hussein divided you and threatened an attack on your neighbors."

      In reaction to the Bremer speech, Mr. Hussein said, "Do you think those decades of causing suffering, division and fear come cheap?" Noting that for half of that period, the suffering, division and threats were supported by Washington, Saddam added, "So where`s the thanks? You`d think I`d at least get a gold watch or something for all those years on US payroll."

      In a televised address from the Oval Office, George W. Bush raised Saddam`s hopes of compensation when he cited Iraq`s "dark and painful history" under the US-sponsored Hussein dictatorship.

      Saddam was also heartened by Mr. Bush`s promise that, "The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq." With new attacks by and on US and other foreign occupation forces, the former strongman stated, "It`s reassuring to know my legacy of darkness and pain for Iraqis will continue under the leadership of President Bush."

      While lauding the capture of Mr. Hussein, experts caution that the War on Terror is far from over, noting that Osama bin Laden, James Baker and George W. Bush remain at large.

      Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." Subscribe to his columns for the Guardian newspapers and view his reports for BBC Television at www.GregPalast.com.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 11:55:14
      Beitrag Nr. 10.453 ()
      Sieht so ein Mann aus, der einen Aufstand gegen die Besatzer organisiert?
      :confused:
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 11:57:38
      Beitrag Nr. 10.454 ()
      December 12, 2003
      Q&A: The Sunni Role in Iraq

      From the Council on Foreign Relations, December 12, 2003


      What role will Sunnis play in the new Iraq?

      Sunni Arabs make up some 15 percent to 20 percent of Iraq`s population, but they dominated the country`s government and economy throughout the 20th century. If the new Iraq is a representative democracy--as is planned--power will shift to the Shiites, who comprise 60 percent of Iraqis. Sunni Kurds, the other major population group in Iraq, make up some 18 percent of the population; they were the target of harsh repression in the Saddam Hussein era.

      Where do the bulk of Iraqi Sunnis live?

      Approximately half live in urban areas, such as Baghdad and Mosul, where they form the backbone of Iraq`s educated middle class, says Phebe Marr, author of "The Modern History of Iraq" and a former senior fellow at National Defense University. Many of the remaining Sunnis live in provincial towns and rural villages in the so-called Sunni triangle north and west of Baghdad. U.S. forces are facing the most entrenched resistance in this zone. Many Sunnis, especially in urban areas, are lawyers, bureaucrats, and educators, and many are believed to be secular, experts say. Sunnis in provincial areas, experts say, tend to be more conservative and religious, and tribal and clan ties are stronger than in larger cities.

      Do all Iraqi Sunnis object to the U.S.-led occupation?

      No. Iraq`s Sunni Arabs on the whole "are frightened by their sudden, dramatic loss of political power, social status, and economic well-being," Judith S. Yaphe, a Middle East expert at National Defense University, writes in the November Arab Reform Bulletin. Their apprehension about the future, coupled with their reported anger at the presence and tactics of U.S. forces, creates some sympathy for the minority fighting the occupation, many experts say. On the other hand, some Sunnis cooperate with the U.S.-led occupation, joining coalition-sponsored police forces and the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. Many more--even some of those fighting the coalition--do not support the return of Saddam, according to press reports. Harnessing the support of those Sunnis unwilling to take up arms against the occupation should be a key aim of the occupiers, Marr says.

      What`s the main difference between Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam?

      Shiites, who account for some 10 percent to 20 percent of the world`s Muslims, split off from the mainstream of Islamic practice because of a disagreement about who was rightfully qualified to lead the Muslim community. Shiites believe Islam`s leader should be a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. Sunnis say leaders should be chosen through ijma, or consensus. Shiites revere Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet Mohammed`s cousin and son-in-law, who was killed while serving as the top leader, or Caliph, of Islam in the 7th century. His tomb is in Najaf, Iraq`s holiest Shiite city.

      In terms of Islamic practice, Shiism differs from Sunnism only in certain details. For example, Shiites permit temporary marriages, or mut`a, which can be contracted for months or even days, and follow different inheritance laws. In matters of theology, most Shiites reject the "official" Sunni doctrine of predestination and believe in the freedom of human choice. They also believe that qualified religious leaders have the authority to interpret Islamic law and dogma, a practice known as ijtihad. For Sunnis, the "door of ijtihad" has been at least theoretically closed since the 10th century, according to Fazlur Rahman, the author of "Islam."

      How significant is the Sunni-Shiite divide in Iraq?

      Not as important as some press reports make it out to be, many Iraq experts say. There has been considerable intermarriage between the two groups among the urban middle class. Some Iraqi tribes have both Sunni and Shiite branches. In addition, experts say Iraqi nationalism is very important to both groups. In the most telling example of this, Sunnis and Shiites fought side by side against the British colonizers. On the other hand, there are Sunni-Shiite tensions, and some radicals on both sides preach hatred against the other group. Sectarian differences will be exacerbated if the coalition emphasizes them, experts say. "Tribal, ethnic, and sectarian [differences] may reflect local truths, but Iraqiness--incorporating all elements of society--should ultimately form the basis of national identity," Yaphe writes.

      Do the Sunnis want their own state?

      There has been no popular call for this, experts say. While Iraq`s Sunnis have a strong sense of communal pride, they are above all Iraqi nationalists who "place Iraq`s political independence and territorial integrity over other identities and values," Yaphe writes.

      What`s the history of the Sunni community in Iraq?

      They have served as army officers, bureaucrats, and teachers since the days of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were Sunnis, as are some 80 percent to 90 percent of the 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide. During the British occupation of Iraq and following independence in 1932, Iraq`s Sunnis were leading nationalists, heading up the government and shaping the country`s identity as both an Arab and an Iraqi state. Saddam`s Baath Party, which assumed power in a 1968 coup, used Sunnis to fill the ranks of the elite Republican Guard, the officer corps of the regular army, and the security and intelligence services. Many of Iraq`s most dedicated Baathists were Sunnis, though the party also had many Shiite members.

      Did Saddam treat all Sunnis equally?

      No, experts say. He particularly favored members of his Al-bu Nasir tribe, who he placed in charge of the security services and ministries. He treated some Sunni tribes and clans badly, and coup attempts against Saddam most often came from these adversaries. Overall, however, Saddam built loyalty among the Sunnis as he did with other Iraqis--by doling out land, money, and other privileges. On the whole, Sunnis fared better, had more resources, and faced less persecution than Shiites and Kurds.

      How observant are Iraq`s Sunnis?

      It varies. Urbanized Iraqis became quite secular between 1968 and the early 1990s, in large part because the Baath Party emphasized a socialist, non-religious Iraqi state. That changed somewhat after the first Gulf War when, to shore up support, Saddam began to use religious symbolism and encourage Islamic observance. Religion, one of the only permissible outlets for personal expression, grew in popularity, and more Iraqi women began to wear the veil, or hijab. Since the end of Saddam`s regime, attending services at mosques appears to have become less popular in some parts of Baghdad, says Faleh A. Jabar, a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and professor of sociology at Birkbeck College at the University of London. On the other hand, increasing numbers of younger Iraqis appear to be drawn to more radical Islamist groups, Marr says.

      How are Sunnis organized religiously?

      There are three basic spheres of religious organization among Iraqi Sunnis: institutional Islam, political Islam, and popular Islam, Jabar says.

      What`s institutional Islam for Iraq`s Sunnis?

      It refers to the official network of Sunni mosques, charities, and schools in Iraq. Unlike Iraq`s Shiite clergy, who were persecuted by Saddam, Sunni clergy were largely employed and controlled by the Baathist government. Sunni imams, or preachers, were led by an official mufti, or grand Sunni authority, paid by the Ministry for Religious Endowment, experts say. Some Sunni clerics trained at the elite Saddam University in Baghdad. The recent collapse of this system of patronage has apparently left many clerics searching for sources of funds, Jabar says. Fundamentalist Islamic movements, such as the Wahhabi faction based in Saudi Arabia, appear to be offering money to newly impoverished clerics, which may be increasing support for Sunni fundamentalism.

      What`s political Islam among Iraq`s Sunnis?

      Groups that support political Islam, also called Islamists, believe that states should not be secular but rather run according to sharia, or Islamic law. Saddam had a complex relationship with such groups in Iraq, experts say. He forbade Sunni fundamentalist teachings that called for the elimination of the officially secular Baath regime. On the other hand, especially in the past decade, Saddam allowed some fundamentalist preaching to help Iraqis "blow off steam," says Juan Cole, an expert on Iraqi history at the University of Michigan. There are two main kinds of Sunni groups now advocating an Islamic state in Iraq: Salafists, or Muslim militants that call for a jihad to bring about their goal of an Islamic state, and organizations that have adopted the model used by the Muslim Brotherhood in many nations, that attempts to achieve their goals by working through the government.

      What is popular Islam?

      Scholars use the term to describe Islamic practices that have emerged from a mixture of folk traditions and official Islamic doctrine. Among Sunnis, the most common form of popular Islam is called Sufism, a mystical form of Islam. The aim of Sufi groups, or orders, is to gain a closer connection to God and higher knowledge through communal ceremonies, often using trance, music and other techniques. Iraq is home to two important Sufi orders: the Maqshbandi and the Quadari. However, Sufi practice in modern Iraq is no longer thought to be widespread and Iraq`s Sufi groups do not appear to have political aspirations, some experts say.

      How much popular support do these groups have?

      According to a September poll by Zogby International, some three-quarters of Sunnis favor a secular state for Iraq. That said, Sunni Islamists are active. A number of previously unknown Salafist organizations--which, among other things, appear to favor a jihad against the United States similar to that supported by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden--have declared responsibility for attacks against U.S. forces and civilians cooperating with them. These groups include the Al-Faruq Brigades, the Mujahadeen al Ta`lifa al-Mansoura, and the Mujhadeen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq.

      The Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in Egypt in the early 20th century. The IIP also appears to favor an Islamic state in Iraq but via peaceful means. Its head, Moshen Abdul Hamid, is a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and a professor at Baghdad University. He is the author of more than 30 books on the interpretation of the Koran.

      Are Islamist groups leading the insurgency?

      The insurgency campaign appears to consist of many groups of varying beliefs unified by a desire to expel U.S. forces from Iraq, according to press reports. Most of these groups, however, appear to consist largely of Sunnis. Its fighters include former Baathists; army and intelligence officers; criminals and mercenaries; ordinary Iraqis angry at the occupation; and Islamist mujahedeen (holy warriors). U.S. officials have said that former Baathists appear to be directing much of this insurgency. Jabar, however, says that the most brutal attacks against civilians --such as the massive suicide car bombings--are likely conducted by Islamists. "They are bound by hatred and self-righteousness; they are the beating heart of the resistance," Jabar says.

      Who leads the Sunni community in Iraq?

      It`s not clear. Overall, experts say there is a shortage now of respected leaders among Sunnis. This is a key problem for those trying to ensure that Sunnis participate in the creation of the new Iraq. Two decisions by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-led occupation government, compounded this problem: the dismissal of the entire Iraqi army--some 400,000 men--and the wide scale de-Baathification program, which has prevented many Sunnis from resuming jobs they held in the Saddam-era bureaucracy. Both of these decisions, many Iraq experts say, have further alienated Iraq`s Sunnis by depriving them of a way to earn a living and regain their former status.

      Who are some of the most important Sunni leaders?

      Adnan Pachachi, 80, serves on the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC). He also served as foreign minister before the Baath Party came to power in 1968. He has lived outside of Iraq for the past 32 years and appears to lack a popular following.
      Ghazi Ajil al-Yawar, 45, is a sheik of the Shamar tribe--one of the largest in Iraq--and sits on the IGC. There are other important Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq, but their capacity to serve as broad-based leaders of the Sunni faithful is unclear.
      Moshen Abdul Hamid is the head of the Iraqi Islamic Party.
      Ahmed al-Kubaisi is head of an organization alternately referred to as the National Union Party or the Iraqi Muslim Ulema Front. He is a popular Sunni cleric who calls for the end of the U.S. occupation and the introduction of an Islamic state in Iraq. He also says the United States has invaded his country to defend Israel`s interests and accuses the Americans of not giving Sunnis an adequate say in Iraqi affairs. So far, he has not openly called for violence against U.S. forces, but he has threatened that he may if the occupation continues.

      -- by Sharon Otterman, staff writer, cfr.org



      Copyright 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 13:51:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.455 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 13:56:03
      Beitrag Nr. 10.456 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-recontake…
      SADDAM HUSSEIN CAPTURED



      Analysts Aimed Low to Score a Direct Hit
      Hussein`s hometown ties, rather than his inner circle, led to the tip that struck pay dirt.
      By Greg Miller and Patrick J. McDonnell
      Times Staff Writers

      December 15, 2003

      TIKRIT, Iraq — The groundwork for Saddam Hussein`s capture was laid several weeks ago, when frustrated U.S. intelligence analysts decided on a fresh approach.

      Setting aside the most-wanted lists and the playing cards with mug shots of regime higher-ups, analysts from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the military looked more closely at the lower ranks of Hussein`s network of supporters.

      They went back through the roster of his security forces, recharted his family and clan connections, and reexamined the rolls of property owners in and around Hussein`s ancestral home of Tikrit.

      They compiled fresh lists of Iraqis with the inclination and wherewithal to help the former dictator stay underground.

      Then the military started rounding people up.

      U.S. officials said the effort helped pry loose the tip that led soldiers to a remote Iraqi farmhouse where they found the elusive dictator hiding in a hole.

      "As we continued to conduct raids and capture people, we got more and more information on the families that were somewhat close to Saddam," said Army Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, whose troops captured Hussein.

      "Over the last 10 days or so, we brought in about five to 10 members of these families, who then were able to give us even more information," he said.

      The break in the nine-month pursuit of Hussein came Friday, when U.S. forces raided a safe house in Baghdad. By the next morning, a captured Iraqi had revealed to interrogators what Odierno called "the ultimate information" — a rock-solid tip on Hussein`s whereabouts.

      The lead pointed to two adobe farmhouses in the village of Ad Dawr, about 10 miles south of Tikrit along the Tigris River. At 10:50 a.m. Saturday, U.S. military commanders in Iraq began mapping out what they called Operation Red Dawn, though it was launched after dusk.

      The farmhouses, in an area thick with orange, lemon and palm groves, were dubbed Wolverine I and Wolverine II. About 600 soldiers from the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, led by Col. Jim Hickey, were assigned to carry out the mission.

      Known as the Raider Brigade for their experience in such operations, they included special forces, aviation units, cavalry, reconnaissance and artillery. They were told they were going after a "high-value target."

      "My guess is they probably did not know who it was until we were finished," Odierno said.

      The raiders moved into position about 6 p.m. Saturday; the operation began at 8. Failing to find their target in either of the farmhouses, they cordoned off a nearly two-square-mile area and launched a more intensive search, said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of allied forces in Iraq.

      Upriver, they found a metal lean-to and a mud hut. Inside the hut were two rooms, one with a bed, chair and clothes strewn about, including new T-shirts. The other room was a crude kitchen with running water. The dwelling seemed to have been abandoned.

      Suspicious, the soldiers moved a rug, uncovering what Sanchez called a "spider hole." Its entrance was camouflaged with bricks and dirt. Underneath was a Styrofoam plug, light enough to be easily pushed aside from below.

      The soldiers lifted the plug and uncovered a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole. At the bottom was a bleary-eyed man. His hair was long and tangled and he had a thick beard. He had a pistol but did not shoot. Hussein surrendered without resistance.

      The once-mighty dictator had no security detail and only an empty taxicab waiting as a getaway car. U.S. forces found boats nearby on the Tigris, perhaps used by visitors to meet him, or to ferry in supplies or for a quick escape.

      A search turned up $750,000 in packs of $100 bills, along with two AK-47 assault rifles. Two men who had tried to flee when the troops first moved in were also taken into custody.

      Hussein was flown by helicopter to Baghdad. Despite his attempt at disguise, there was little question about his identity. Authorities took a DNA sample almost as a formality. Previously captured members of his inner circle, including former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, were brought in to verify his identity.

      For U.S. intelligence analysts and military commanders, the capture was a sweet conclusion to a frustrating pursuit.

      When U.S. troops took Baghdad last April, Hussein was traveling in an entourage of luxury vehicles, surrounded by bodyguards and supporters. He was well dressed, well defended and seemingly oblivious of the forces arrayed against him.

      In early May, a videotape obtained by Associated Press Television showed a bedraggled and confused-looking Hussein seated at a boardroom table in military uniform, reading from a prepared statement.

      Thereafter, Hussein was a disembodied voice on audio-tapes, urging Iraqis to fight the "occupiers."

      Authorities believe he kept to the agricultural villages near the Tigris River, protected by a tight network of tribal and family loyalties.

      At one point last summer, the 4th Infantry Division launched an average of 10 raids every 24 hours, some aimed at Hussein himself, others at his lieutenants. Nearly all of the raids were based on tips that poured in after U.S. authorities offered a $25-million reward.

      On Aug. 21, a lead sent soldiers to a farmhouse owned by a Baath Party loyalist in the town of Abbarah. The troops took five men into custody but found no sign of Hussein.

      In early September, soldiers swooped down on Albu Talha, a tiny village of mud huts and shepherds. The area was known as the ancestral homeland of Hussein`s mother, and a tip had suggested he was hiding there. Incongruously, the troops found CBS anchor Dan Rather instead, wearing a flak jacket and helmet and reporting from the Iraqi countryside.

      Military authorities suspected their own planning, including scouting missions, was tipping off Hussein`s protectors, giving him time to escape. Odierno said his troops had previously been in the town where Hussein was discovered Saturday.

      Despite their frustration, U.S. forces were steadily narrowing Hussein`s room for maneuver.

      U.S. lawmakers and military officials said a number of recent changes had contributed to his capture. More intelligence analysts were sent to Iraq. Communications with the military were streamlined. Intelligence agents teamed with a special operations group dubbed Task Force 11.

      And analysts shifted their focus from the most notorious of Hussein`s lieutenants.

      It was "an effort to … approach it from a different direction … to see what we could learn about lower-level folks, people who would be in a position to help him stay hidden," said a U.S. official. "Some people were impossible to find, but we`d find their relatives. One interrogation led to another raid, which led to another interrogation."

      Officials said it was significant that President Bush, in his nationally televised address on Hussein`s capture, singled out intelligence analysts for praise. "The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator`s footprints in a vast country," Bush said.

      Solders traced those footprints to an apparently deserted farmhouse by the river and found their quarry beneath a rug and a foam lid, six feet underground, and took him alive.

      *


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Miller reported from Washington and McDonnell from Tikrit.



      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 14:06:54
      Beitrag Nr. 10.457 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-pol15dec1…
      NEWS ANALYSIS

      http://images.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2003-12/10625001.pdf…

      Bush`s Political Gain Must Pass Test of Time
      Democratic candidates try to use Hussein`s capture against Dean.
      By Ronald Brownstein
      Times Staff Writer

      December 15, 2003

      WASHINGTON — For President Bush, the capture of Saddam Hussein provides a huge short-term political boost. But its long-term impact during the coming campaign year will depend largely on its effect in Iraq.

      Both Democratic and Republican analysts expect that Bush`s approval ratings and the public`s attitude toward the U.S. mission in Iraq will improve, perhaps significantly, as a result of Sunday`s dramatic news. But the durability of those gains could turn on whether Hussein`s capture leads to a reduction in the steady stream of American casualties that has eroded the mission`s support at home.

      "At the end of the day, what matters is what happens," said one ranking Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking. "So what matters is what effect this has on the insurgency."

      Some experts believe that having Hussein in custody could cause problems for the Democrats if their presidential nominee is, like current front-runner Howard Dean, defined by opposition to the war.

      "The risk to the Democratic Party of Dean as their presidential nominee has gone up dramatically," said Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University.

      Indeed, several Democratic contenders wasted no time trying to turn Sunday`s announcement against the former Vermont governor. "If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place," Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said.

      The Democrats` criticism of Dean was much sharper than their comments about Bush, whom the 2004 contenders have been lashing on Iraq for months. On Sunday, their words describing the administration were primarily those of praise.

      "The first order of business is to congratulate the United States military, to congratulate the Iraqi people and to say that this is a great day, both for [the] American military and American people and for the Iraqi people," Dean told reporters in West Palm Beach, Fla. "I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration."

      Likewise, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri — whom Dean has attacked in Iowa television ads for supporting the war — praised the administration for the successful action.

      "This is a great day for our brave troops in Iraq, for the administration, and for the American people, and most importantly for the people of Iraq," he told reporters in Sumter, S.C.

      For Bush, Sunday`s news from Iraq follows a steady upswing in economic indicators, with the stock market and overall growth increasing substantially this fall. Greater stability in Iraq and a recovering economy would give Bush the classic campaign backdrop of peace and prosperity and could make him very difficult to beat, experts in both parties agree.

      The Democrats, said the GOP strategist close to the White House, "are quickly going to run out of issues to have a referendum on."

      In fact, many uncertainties could still cause trouble. The depth of the recovery remains murky, and job growth remains slow enough that Bush still is on track to become the first president since Herbert Hoover to suffer a net loss of employment during his term.

      After inheriting record budget surpluses, he is heading into the election carrying the weight of the largest budget deficits ever. And many of the benefits from the capture of Hussein could erode if violence and unrest persist in Iraq.

      "They probably learned from the banner on the Lincoln saying `Mission accomplished,` " said Cliff May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a conservative advocacy group. "I think if there is a banner this time, it will probably say, `One more mission accomplished.` "

      Added John Zogby, an independent pollster, "It`s big … but the problem is there are still troops there on the ground and they are still in harm`s way."

      James B. Steinberg, a deputy national security advisor in the Clinton administration, predicted that the level of violence would diminish over time.

      "The continued existence of Saddam out there has provided a rallying cry and motivating force for Baathists in Iraq," said Steinberg, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "So I do think it will have a big impact on their determination and willingness to carry on the fight."

      In polls this year, Americans have viewed Hussein`s capture as an important, but not indispensable, step in Iraq.

      Asked if the mission would be considered successful only if Hussein is captured, a majority have consistently said no; in one CBS survey this year, nearly four times as many Americans said stabilizing Iraq was a higher priority than apprehending Hussein.

      A decline in violence would greatly strengthen Bush`s hand in debates over the war. But in their initial reactions, the Democratic contenders showed little indication that Hussein`s capture would affect their arguments about the conflict.

      They all noted that while getting the former dictator in custody was an important milestone, it was no guarantee of stability in Iraq. "This is still going to be a long, tough struggle," Gephardt said.

      Opponents of the conflict held their ground. Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark told reporters in a conference call that "I don`t think that the capture of Saddam Hussein in any way invalidates [the] concerns" he has raised about the war.

      Long-shot candidate Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, who has called for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops, said the capture meant that the American goal of removing Hussein from power "had been accomplished" and that America could now transfer authority for reconstructing Iraq to the United Nations.

      The Democratic contenders who backed the war have uniformly accused Bush of fumbling the reconstruction by failing to win sufficient financial and military support from other nations. Albeit with a more conciliatory tone, Gephardt, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina all signaled Sunday that they would continue to press those arguments.

      "Our military leaders have accomplished a great success," Edwards said in a statement. "I hope President Bush will use this opportunity to chart a course in Iraq that will bring in our allies in a meaningful way to achieve a democratic and peaceful Iraq."

      Yet even some Democratic experts believe that if Hussein`s capture does improve security in Iraq, a call for greater assistance from allies could become tougher to sell.

      "If things go better, then the need for the United Nations or somebody else is less compelling because we are just doing better on our own politically," Steinberg said.

      Much of the event`s ultimate effect on the general election depends on ramifications in Iraq impossible to predict today.

      But its reverberations could be felt immediately in the Democratic race for the nomination, where Dean has surged ahead over the last six months in part by stressing his opposition to the war in Iraq.

      Since Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq in May, the Democratic race has been heavily influenced by a complex dynamic: Any reversal in Iraq that strengthens the Democrats against Bush also has strengthened Dean, the most vocally antiwar of the major candidates, against the rest of the field.

      The question now may be whether the reverse is true — whether good news in Iraq will be bad news for Dean. The candidates chasing him quickly made clear that they hoped so.

      Kerry, who only days ago was stressing the similarity between Dean`s views and his own in the period before the war, insisted Sunday that the capture raised questions about Dean`s foreign policy judgment. Kerry suggested that Hussein`s capture validated his 2002 vote for the congressional resolution authorizing the war.

      "This is a time that underscores that, if we are going to beat George Bush, we need somebody who has experience and who got this policy right," Kerry told reporters in Davenport, Iowa.

      Without criticizing Dean by name, aides to Clark also insisted that Hussein`s capture showed the need for a candidate with credentials to compete with Bush on foreign policy.

      "Today`s development reinforces that the major issue in the 2004 election is going to be national security," said Chris Lehane, a senior Clark strategist. "The Democrats need a candidate who can meet the commander-in-chief test in next year`s election."

      Lieberman took the hardest line, denouncing Dean, praising the capture in unqualified terms — "Hallelujah, praise the Lord," he said on NBC`s "Meet the Press" — and calling for Hussein to be tried before a body that could sentence him to death.

      On his campaign plane during a flight from Palm Beach to San Francisco on Sunday afternoon, Dean declined to respond to the comments made by his rivals.

      "Today is not a day for politics," Dean said. "Today is a day for celebration."

      *


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Times staff writers Jim Rainey in Davenport, Iowa; Matea Gold in San Francisco; and Nick Anderson in Sumter, S.C., contributed to this report.



      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 14:12:39
      Beitrag Nr. 10.458 ()
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldsto…
      COMMENTARY




      Let Justice Be Done in Baghdad
      International involvement is essential in establishing a war crimes court.
      By Richard Goldstone

      December 15, 2003

      The capture of Saddam Hussein is a cause for rejoicing. His crimes against humanity were numerous, leaving hundreds of thousands of victims in Iraq, especially among the Shiites who dared to stand up against him, and the Kurds, against whom genocide was committed by his regime.

      The question that now arises is how Hussein should be brought to justice. We are all fortunate that he was taken alive, rather than killed, because it offers the world community — and the United States in particular — a chance to show that we are more principled and fair than he could ever have been and that the rule of law is stronger than the need for revenge.

      But how exactly is it to be done? Similar debates have arisen with regard to other war criminals. It is to the credit of the U.S. that the leading Nazi war criminals were brought to justice at Nuremberg. The leaders of the other victorious allied nations would have preferred their summary execution.

      And the Nuremberg legacy, in turn, inspired the establishment — under the leadership of the U.S. — of the United Nations war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Thanks to strong financial and political support from the U.S., those two tribunals have achieved important successes — including, most recently, the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. And U.S. support for those tribunals continues despite the rejection by the Bush administration of the International Criminal Court, which I believe was a terrible and shortsighted mistake.

      In looking forward to the appropriate trial for Hussein, I would suggest that decisions should be dictated by the following considerations:

      First, the primary goal of such a trial must be to bring justice to the victims of the horrendous crimes for which Hussein stands accused. That can be achieved only by gathering meticulous proof of those crimes and of the part that Hussein played in their execution.

      Second, the trial must be — and must be seen to be — scrupulously fair, according to present-day norms. Those are the norms that the U.S. has traditionally upheld in its own country and by which it has judged the criminal justice systems of other nations. They also are now the norms that are recognized and upheld by the community of democratic nations. Neither anger nor haste nor politics should be allowed to compromise those standards.

      Third, a trial of Hussein must not be left open to the criticism that has been associated with Nuremberg and the trial in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann — namely, that they represented "victors` justice." Eichmann, you will remember, was kidnapped by the Israelis from the streets of Buenos Aires and tried before Israeli judges in 1961; the Nuremberg trials were conducted by the Allies — the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union.

      Fourth, criminal trials, to the extent possible and consistent with fairness, should be held as close as possible to the crime scenes. That is important for the victims. The Security Council recognized that that would not be possible in the cases of the Balkans and Rwanda because justice could not have been achieved in the atmosphere that prevailed in those places at the time. But still, distancing trials from the victims is unfortunate and ultimately makes those trials less relevant and less effective as an instrument for reconciliation.

      It seems reasonable, therefore, that the trial of Hussein should take place in Iraq. However, I am highly skeptical of the claim by some members of the Iraqi Governing Council that there are appropriate Iraqi judges who, without assistance, could preside at war crimes tribunals.

      There has been no credible Iraqi criminal justice system for some decades. There are few if any Iraqi prosecutors who have the experience needed to mount credible prosecutions. There are no credible Iraqi defense attorneys capable of providing Hussein with the advice and support that he would need in defending himself. The independence of the judges would be highly questionable as well.

      Although the Iraqis are not prepared to handle such trials on their own, this does not mean that the U.S. should take the job on itself. This is an undertaking that must have the backing of the international community, rather than just the country that launched the war against Iraq. It follows, in my view, that the best solution would be the kind of hybrid court that has been set up in Sierra Leone and Cambodia — a mix of local and international judges and prosecutors, including guarantees for the safety of defense attorneys.

      I would suggest that the United Nations and the U.S. together could provide crucial support for such a war crimes court in Iraq. It would also have the merit of furthering the just demand of the U.S. that a new Iraq have a democratic form of government.

      Above all, it would serve the interests of the most important beneficiaries of such a trial — Saddam Hussein`s victims.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Richard Goldstone is the former chief prosecutor of the U.N. war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. He recently stepped down as a justice of the South African Constitutional Court.



      Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 15:21:39
      Beitrag Nr. 10.459 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 20:26:00
      Beitrag Nr. 10.460 ()
      "Saddam`s capture: good news for Iraqis, bad news for Bush and Blair"
      Printed on Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 22:34:02 CST ( )

      By Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi
      Chairman of Arab Media Watch http://www.ArabMediaWatch.com
      YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United Kingdom)

      (YellowTimes.org) – The capture on December 14 of Saddam Hussein is being touted by U.S./U.K. authorities and propagandists as a victory for them and a sign of progress for Iraq. While it is certainly an important psychological, symbolic blessing for Iraqis who suffered so terribly under Saddam`s dictatorship, it changes nothing on the ground for a people now living under a chaotic, dangerous occupation. In fact, his capture could turn out to be bad news for George Bush and Tony Blair.

      Jubilation among Iraqis is totally understandable -- they see this as closure, the end of a dark era in their lives and their country`s history.

      However, reporters, analysts and experts have rightly pointed out that this will not alleviate the daily ordeal for ordinary Iraqis -- dire poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, checkpoints, lack of medicines, schools, drinkable water, electricity and fuel, an entire infrastructure destroyed by allied bombing and U.N. sanctions, an entire economy up for sale to those responsible, and the heavy-handedness of a U.S. occupation force with little understanding or care for Iraqi life, sensitivities, hopes, grievances and concerns.

      All this from an administration in Washington that was so keen on war that it forgot, or didn`t care, to plan for peace, ignoring its shallow promises of a better life for the Iraqi people, who were freed from one set of miseries and shackled with another by outsiders experimenting, playing God with their futures.

      Bush and Blair have long claimed that Saddam`s capture would take the steam out of the resistance. They assumed, naively and against the advice of officials and generals on the ground, that Saddam was still "running the show" (a haggard, disoriented old man caught sleeping and alone in a small dirt hole is hardly a model resistance leader).

      They assumed, against the evidence from reporters who interviewed resistance leaders and fighters, that they were fighting primarily in his name, in the ludicrous hope that he would return to Baghdad to rule once again.

      They assumed, simplistically and inaccurately, that Iraqi opposition to Saddam would translate into blind support for occupation. Remember the laughable expectation that Iraqis would greet their "liberators" with roses? Remember the fanfare following the killing of Saddam`s sons? How quickly these petered out into obscurity.

      The resistance will not vanish. Saddam`s capture will not be the answer to Bush`s and Blair`s dreams because they have wilfully ignored and belittled the widespread opposition by a proud people against the occupation of their country by those who for decades supported the tyrant who brutalised them, who bombed a prosperous, educated society into the third world, who maintained sanctions that punished everyone except the regime it was supposed to target.

      The resistance will continue, and Bush and Blair will be left to find another bogeyman, another sorry excuse for the chaos they have sowed. This will not stop the opening of eyes to an insurgency quite separate from Saddam.

      The masses who are against the occupation of their country will still be against it. Those suffering under the current mismanagement will still suffer -- in fact, his capture may focus their minds even more on their daily plight. And those peripheral elements who fought for him may well continue to do so with renewed vigor, out of revenge.

      All in all, Bush and Blair may soon wish they kept Saddam on the run. That way, they could have continued to pour blame on an influence and persona that died the day Baghdad fell.

      Now the blinkers are off. Saddam`s capture is certainly a good thing, not least because Bush and Blair have one less reason to stay in Iraq, and because this may well cripple the propaganda machine built around him to obscure the very legitimate, serious and obvious grievances behind Iraqi opposition to occupation.

      [Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi is chairman of Arab Media Watch http://www.ArabMediaWatch.com, an organization dedicated to objective British coverage of Arab issues.]

      YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 20:32:14
      Beitrag Nr. 10.461 ()
      W. David Jenkins III: `We got him - what now?`
      Date: Monday, December 15 @ 09:58:05 EST
      Topic: War & Terrorism


      By W. David Jenkins III

      Well, I never thought I`d be writing this one. I was up pretty late last night, and when I woke up too early this morning, I could`ve sworn C-SPAN was playing a cruel joke on my tired eyes. But the more I listened, the more it became apparent that what I was hearing was true. They actually caught Saddam Hussein! Even though I, like many others, was against Bush`s illegal and reckless invasion, I had to admit this was good news. At least, I think it`s good news.

      I`m listening to the people calling in, and I have a nagging feeling that many of those who are ecstatic over the news, are under the misconception that we can once again raise that tacky "Mission Accomplished" banner. I can`t help but have a great deal of sympathy for these people, but it just shows how little is understood about what is happening over there. I keep hearing remarks like, "now the attacks will stop," and now we can "bring them all home soon." Anyone who has been following the fiasco over there should know better than to jump to such conclusions.



      The insurgence Americans face in Iraq is not exclusively due to pro-Saddam factions in fact, many of those who are attacking us would have loved to have gotten to Saddam first. They are not killing our soldiers because we conquered Hussein, they`re killing our soldiers because they are westerners occupying their country; that fact does not end with Saddam in custody. There`s a part of me that fears things could get worse. In fact, as I write this, an explosion just took place outside the Palestine Hotel. But let`s not worry about that `cause we have some serious celebrating to do!

      With the threat of Hussein returning to power erased, I think that the stage is set for a new surge by various Iraqi factions making a grab for power in an attempt to regain their country. His capture will probably create a vacuum where hostile forces will feel less inhibited against the Americans, which occupy their country, and we will be seen as the only remaining threat. As with the temporary defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan where the warlords gained strength in the territories outside Kabul, so shall the various tribes in Iraq begin to assert themselves to positions of power in the eyes of their own people - much to the frustration of Bremer and Co.

      The mistake that many Americans make, Bush and Co. included, is that, although, Iraqis view Hussein as a ruthless man; he also represents an Arab leader who was not afraid to stand up to the United States. As happy and relieved as some Iraqis may be at his capture, they are angry that it was done by western forces. If Bush and Bremer were serious about winning over the hearts of these occupied citizens, they would`ve allowed an Arab force to make the arrest. An article in The New York Times states that the Iraqis are afraid that Hussein`s arrest by American G.I.s will strengthen Bush`s chances to continue his reign as president, as the action will boost his popularity in the U.S. - which they see as a threat to their independence.

      So what do they do now that they have Hussein in custody? General Sanchez stated that they dont know right now, even though there are already loud cries by the Iraqis for a civil trial. If Bush doesn`t want to screw up yet another opportunity, granting that wish to the Iraqi people would be a smart move. Of course, simply turning over Saddam to the Iraqis and turning a blind eye would be akin to murder. But, if the proceedings were overseen by international representatives it could result in a positive outcome, thus allowing the occupied citizens a true sense of justice, while giving the coalition a desperately needed step ahead in the eyes of the Iraqi people. It would be a smart move, which explains why I`m not getting my hopes up. Bush and Bremer face a very delicate situation, which will require much thought and compromise in order to make the most of this fortunate turn of events, however, they`re already thumping their chests and issuing sound bites, so chances are they`re going to screw this one up too.

      While we should be proud of the accomplishment by the troops involved in Hussein`s capture, it is imperative to remember that Saddam Hussein is little more than a bit player in the grand scheme, that is the Iraq Invasion. His capture should be more than a chance for political grandstanding and more than the reason George W. is being allowed to sit next to his Daddy at the dinner table again. On the one hand, we can all be relieved that the news channels will have something other than Michael Jackson to talk about, but on the other hand, Hussein`s capture changes nothing concerning where we are, and how we got there. And the thing that bothers me the most, as someone who loves this country, is the fact that the only reason Hussein was captured in the first place, is that the president lied to the country in order to invade Iraq . And the only thing worse than that, is that there are self-proclaimed "patriots" who think that it`s okay to be lied to - as long as it`s Bush doing the lying. While it still remains to be seen just how the people of Iraq will actually benefit from all this, at least we can be rest assured that there are a couple of giddy neo-cons who feel that much closer to realizing their dream of geopolitical dominance. Then again, maybe not.

      Americans are well known for their short attention span, and it`s quite possible that the Bush Gang peaked a little too early. As bad as they needed some good news out of Iraq for a change, Karl Rove, and the boys might have been better off waiting for a bit before announcing Saddam`s arrest much like they did with the shoe-bomber, or dirty-bomber, or whatever they were. Now they need to get as much mileage out of Saddam as they can to distract everyone from the fact that we`re still stuck over there, and Halliburton is still sticking it to the Pentagon over here.

      The attacks will continue, and if the phone calls coming in to C-SPAN are any indication, we will continue to become an even more polarized people, because there are those who defend the fact that Bush Inc. must first lie to the country, and the world in order, to achieve any perceived success. The planes bearing our dead will continue to come home shrouded in darkness, and yet, this administration will become even more emboldened to pursue their reckless agenda. America`s coffers will continue to be bled to death, benefiting only those who put us into this mess in the first place, at the expense of everyone else -- including those soldiers who remain in that shooting gallery.

      We can be supportive and proud of our brave soldiers, and know that their actions in capturing Hussein did more for their morale than a plastic turkey photo-op. But we shouldn`t fool ourselves into thinking that we`ve accomplished the mission. Today`s news has closed just one door in the ordeal that is Bush`s Invasion, however, it has opened several more. Now we are faced with walking a tightrope while being led by those who have proven that they are less than balanced.

      Go ahead and party up a storm if you like. But I have a feeling we`re in for one hell of a hangover.





      This article comes from The Smirking Chimp
      http://www.SmirkingChimp.com

      The URL for this story is:
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 20:35:53
      Beitrag Nr. 10.462 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 20:46:14
      Beitrag Nr. 10.463 ()
      ZNet | Iraq

      We Finally Got Our Frankenstein
      and He Was In a Spider Hole!

      by Michael Moore; December 15, 2003

      Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That`s something most Americans can`t get.
      America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.

      But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.


      But it wasn`t always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn’t the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That`s right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!

      We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That`s how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here`s the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report): * Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax. * Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin. * Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart. * Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs. * Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness. * Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

      And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (for a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam, go here).


      We were so cozy with dear old Saddam that we decided to feed him satellite images so he could locate where the Iranian troops were. We pretty much knew how he would use the information, and sure enough, as soon as we sent him the spy photos, he gassed those troops. And we kept quiet. Because he was our friend and the Iranians were the "enemy." A year after he first gassed the Iranians, we reestablished full diplomatic relations with him!

      Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea -- they wouldn’t let anything derail their good buddy Saddam. We had a virtual love fest with this Frankenstein whom we (in part) created.

      And, just like the mythical Frankenstein, Saddam eventually spun out of control. He would no longer do what he was told by his master. Saddam had to be caught. And now that he has been brought back from the wilderness, perhaps he will have something to say about his creators. Maybe we can learn something... interesting. Maybe Don Rumsfeld could smile and shake Saddam`s hand again. Just like he did when he went to see him in 1983 (see the photo here).

      Maybe we never would have been in the situation we`re in if Rumsfeld, Bush, Sr., and company hadn`t been so excited back in the 80s about their friendly monster in the desert.

      Meanwhile, anybody know where the guy is who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? Our other Frankenstein?? Maybe he`s in a mouse hole.

      So many of our little monsters, so little time before the next election.

      Stay strong, Democratic candidates. Quit sounding like a bunch of wusses. These bastards sent us to war on a lie, the killing will not stop, the Arab world hates us with a passion, and we will pay for this out of our pockets for years to come. Nothing that happened today (or in the past 9 months) has made us ONE BIT safer in our post-9/11 world. Saddam was never a threat to our national security.



      Only our desire to play Dr. Frankenstein dooms us all.


      Yours,

      Michael Moore
      mmflint@aol.com
      www.michaelmoore.com
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 20:55:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.464 ()
      Diesmal was von Moore aber in Deutsch.

      Truthähne auf dem Mond
      von Michael Moore
      ZNet 09.12.2003

      Guten Tag Herr Bush,

      es ist jetzt zwei Wochen her, seit Ihrem Überraschungsbesuch in einem der beiden Länder, die sie jetzt regieren, und ich muss sagen, ich bin immer noch gerührt von dieser Geste. Mensch, nehmen Sie mich doch nächstes Mal mit! Ich verstehe ja, dass nur dreizehn Pressevertreter mit Ihnen mitkommen konnten -- und jetzt stellt sich heraus, dass nur EINER davon tatsächlich auch ein richtiger Zeitungsreporter war. Aber dafür haben Sie FÜNF Fotografen (hey, ich verstehe, scheiß auf die Worte, es geht nur um die Bilder!), ein paar Jungs von Nachrichtenagenturen und ein Team vom Nachrichtensender Fox News mitgenommen (wirklich gerecht und ausgeglichen!).

      Dann las ich dieses Wochenende in der Zeitung, dass der große Truthahn, den Sie in Bagdad hochgehalten haben (Sie wissen schon, auf dem Foto, dass das, jetzt peinlich gewordene Filmmaterial von Ihnen auf dem Flugzeugträger mit der Aufschrift „Mission erfolgreich abgeschlossen“, ersetzen soll), dass sich also herausgestellt hat, dass Ihr großer, wunderbarer Truthahn niemals von den Truppen verspeist wurde! Er wurde von niemandem gegessen! Weil er nämlich gar nicht echt war! Es war ein gefälschter Truthahn, der herangeschleppt wurde, um für all diese tollen Kameralinsen auszusehen wie ein echter, essbarer Truthahn.

      Jetzt weiß ich, dass manche Leute sagen werden, dass Sie eben Requisiten toll finden. (genauso wie an den unteren Extremitäten Ihres „Flyboy“ - Anzugs), aber genau, ich verstehe, das ist alles nur Theater! Und was wenn es ein gefälschter Truthahn war? Wenn der ganze Ausflug gefälscht war, komplett inszeniert, so dass es wie echte Nachrichten aussieht. Die falsche Glasur auf diesem Vogel unterschied sich nicht so sehr, von der gefälschten Glasur, mit der dieser Krieg überzogen wurde. Und die gefälschte Füllung in dem gefälschten Vogel war genau das richtige Symbol für unser Land in dieser Zeit. Amerika liebt falsche Honigglasuren, wir lieben es gemästet zu werden, und verdammt, SIE wissen das! Das ist es was Sie den Leuten, die Sie führen, so nahe bringt.

      Es war auch eine gute Idee, der Presse zu sagen, sie müssten auf dem Weg nach Bagdad die Vorhänge im Flugzeug zuziehen. Keiner der Leute aus Ihrem Pressegefolge hat sich beschwert. Sie mögen zugezogene Vorhänge und sie mögen es im Dunkeln zu sitzen. So macht es mehr Spaß. Und als Sie Ihnen gesagt haben, sie müssten die Akkus aus ihren Handys nehmen, damit Sie niemanden anrufen können, und sie pflichtbewusst gehorchten --- das war genial! Wenn Sie ihnen erzählt hätten, sie müssten ihre Hände auf ihre Köpfe legen und ihre Nasen mit Ihren Zungenspitzen berühren, ich glaube, das hätten sie auch gemacht! So sehr mögen die Sie. Sie hätten den ganzen Weg über „Simon befiehlt“ spielen können. Das wäre kein großer Unterschied zu „Karl befiehlt“ gewesen, das ist ein Spiel, dass sie am liebsten jeden Tag mit Herrn Rove spielen.

      Nun, falls Sie irgendwelche Weihnachtsüberraschungen vorhaben, vergessen Sie nicht mich einzuplanen. Als ich letzte Woche hörte, dass Sie wieder einen Menschen auf den Mond schicken wollten, da dachte ich: Macht die falsche Gans fertig --- der alte George will dort die Feiertage verbringen! Ich mache Ihnen keine Vorwürfe, wer wollte nicht auf den Mond, angesichts von fast 3 Mio. verschwundenen Jobs, von einem Überschuss in Höhe von 281 Milliarden US-Dollar der verschwunden ist, und von den USA, die in einem Krieg stecken, der niemals enden wird! Nehmen Sie doch dieses Mal DIE GANZE Presse mit! Halten Sie sie auf dem Mond fest! Sie werden es dort lieben! Es sieht aus wie Crawford! Sie können auf dem Mond auch Golf spielen. Sie werden dort oben so viel Spaß haben, dass Sie vielleicht gar nicht mehr zurück wollen. Dann nehmen Sie vielleicht auch besser gleich Cheney mit. Behaupten Sie einfach, dass es sich um ein medizinisches Experiment handelt, oder so. „Das ist ein kleiner Schritt für einen Menschen, aber ein riesiger Satz für jeden Amerikaner, der diese ganze Scheiße satt hat.“

      Ihr,
      Michael Moore

      (mmflint@aol.com)





      [ Übersetzt von: Linda Ramcke | Orginalartikel: "Turkeys on the Moon..." ]
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 21:19:10
      Beitrag Nr. 10.465 ()
      Monday, December 15th, 2003
      Robert Fisk Reports From Near Tikrit After Visiting the Hole Where Hussein Was Found
      Fisk nach 22,30Min.

      Video DSL:
      http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2003/dec/256/d…

      Modem ISDN:
      http://www.democracynow.org/streampage.pl
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Robert Fisk, chief Middle East correspondent for the London Independent reports from the site where Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. forces in the village of Dawr near Tikrit.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      In his latest article, London Independent’s chief Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk writes:
      "So they got Saddam at last. Unkempt, his tired eyes betraying defeat; even the $750,000 in cash found in his hole in the ground demeaned him.

      “Saddam in chains; maybe not literally, but he looked in that extraordinary videotape yesterday like a prisoner of ancient Rome, the barbarian at last cornered, the hand caressing the scraggy beard. All those ghosts - of gassed Iranians and Kurds, of Shias gunned into the mass graves of Karbala, of the prisoners dying under excruciating torture in the villas of Saddam`s secret police - must surely have witnessed something of this. "Ladies and gentlemen - we got him," crowed Paul Bremer, the American proconsul in Iraq. "This is a great day in Iraq`s history. For decades, hundreds of thousands of you suffered at the hands of this cruel man. For decades, this cruel man divided you against each other. For decades, he threatened to attack your neighbours. These days are gone for ever ... the tyrant is a prisoner," he said.

      “Tony Blair said: "Saddam has gone from power, he won`t be coming back. That the Iraqi people now know, and it is they who will decide his fate." It took just 600 American soldiers to capture the man who was for 12 years one of the West`s best friends in the Middle East and for 12 more years the West`s greatest enemy in the Middle East. In a miserable 8ft hole in the mud of a Tigris farm near the village of Ad-Dawr, the president of the Iraqi Arab Republic, leader of the Arab Socialist Baath party, ex-guerrilla fighter, invader of two nations, friend of Jacques Chirac and a man once courted by President Ronald Reagan, was found hiding, almost certainly betrayed by his own comrades and now destined - if the Americans mean what they say - to a trial for war crimes on a Nuremberg scale.”


      Robert Fisk, chief Middle East correspondent for the London Independent speaking from the village of Dawr, near Tikrit.
      To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (800) 881-2359.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 21:48:35
      Beitrag Nr. 10.466 ()
      U.S._support_for_Iraq
      in the 1980s
      Das ist die beste Sammlung von Dokumenten über den Irak mit seinen Verbindungen. Sehr viele Links:

      http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpoli…


      The Pentagon “wasn`t so horrified by Iraq`s use of gas. It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn`t make any difference.” - - former Defense insider, anonymous.



      Summary: The U.S. provided financial aid, military intelligence, and actual military planning to Iraq at a time when the Reagan administration was well aware that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran. One anonymous inside source told the New York Times that the Pentagon “wasn`t so horrified by Iraq`s use of gas. It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn`t make any difference.”
      The facts surrounding U.S. covert support for Iraq and its awareness that Iraq had been using chemical warfare against the Iranians, and perhaps the Kurds, offers serious implications to the current Bush administration`s argument for `regime change` in Iraq. One of the main premises of the administration`s argument is that Saddam Hussein must be removed from power because he is `evil` - referring of course to the allegation that Saddam Hussein `gassed his own people.`

      Related Outlines: Post-War Iraq.
      Pre-War Planning
      Adminstration
      Contracts
      Economy
      Education
      Oil
      Resistance
      Legal System


      Invasion of Iraq.
      Arab and Iraqi Civilian response to U.S. war of `liberation`
      Problems encountered by U.S. troops during the beginning of the U.S. invasion


      Preparing for War
      Main
      Hawks` legal pretext for war
      US coercing support from Allies
      Plans for War Against Iraq

      The Bush administration`s shaky evidence
      Politicized Intelligence, Outright Deception
      Forged Niger Documents
      Iraq`s alleged ties to the al Qaeda terrorist group
      Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, and nuclear
      `Saddam Hussein is a War Criminal`
      `Saddam Hussein is Evil`
      Britain`s Dossier of proof against Iraq
      British government’s release of plagiarized dossier

      Other
      U.S./Israeli interests in Iraq
      Iraqi Opposition Groups
      Iraqi Response to U.S. Threats
      Opposition to Invading Iraq [not current]
      U.S. divided over Iraq.
      Public opinion
      Weapons Inspections
      `Prewar` Military Operations in Iraq
      Reasons not to go to war with Iraq
      Turkey and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
      Push For War on Iraq Timeline [not current]
      U.S. support for during the 1980s
      Pre-911 calls for war on Iraq
      The Decision to `Get Saddam`








      Table of Contents

      Chronology of U.S./Iraqi relations. 1979-1993



      Categories.

      1 US complicity in the development of Iraq`s illegal weapons programs.

      2 Western companies that helped build Iraq`s weapons arsenal .

      3 U.S. interests.

      4 Iraq’s use of chemical weapons.

      5 Description of U.S. aide to Iraq during the the latter`s war with Iran

      6 Reagan administration’s knowledge that Iraq was using chemical warfare.

      7 How the Reagan administration responded to the fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons.

      8 Responses by officials who were implicated in the allegations made by sources cited by the NYT.

      9 Testimonies













      Chronology of U.S./Iraqi relations. 1979-1993
      Acknowledgements:


      A significant portion of this chronology came from:


      Hurd, Nathaniel and Glen Rangwala.
      12-12-2001. "U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990."
      http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s…





      Pre-1979. Summary



      1979. The U.S. State Department, under the Carter administration, included Iraq in its list of states that sponsor terrorism. [Phythian 1997]


      April 10, 1980. Saddam`s Interior Ministry released directive No 2884, which stated, "all youths aged between 18 and 28 are exempt from deportation and must be held at detention centers until further notice". [Independent, 12/13/02]


      Late Summer 1980. Roughly 5,000 Iraqis - mostly northern Kurds - were detained by Saddam`s army never to be seen again. According to numerous Kurds interviewed by the Independent of London, they were killed in gas and chemical weapons experiments . The newspaper interviewed one Iraqi Kurdish refugee in Lebanon who said, "It is now clear, that during the war with Iran many of the young detainees were taken to secret laboratories in different locations in Iraq and were exposed to intense doses of chemical and biological substances in a myriad of conditions and situations. With every military setback at the front causing panic in Baghdad, these experiments had to be speeded up – which meant more detainees were needed to be sent to the laboratories, which had to test VX nerve gas, mustard gas, sarin, tabun, aflatoxin, gas gangrene and anthrax." The refugee also claimed that Western intelligence was fully aware of what happened to the 5,000 detainees. [Independent, 12/13/02]



      September 1980. Iraq invaded Iran.


      1980. A U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document reported that since the mid-1970s, Iraq had been `actively acquiring` chemical weapons. [Financial Times 2/23/83 cited in Phythian 1997]


      1982. President Reagan ordered the Defense Department and the CIA to supply Iraq`s military with intelligence information, advice, and hardware for battle after being advised to do so by CIA Director William Casey. Former Reagan National Security official Howard Teicher said that Casey "personally spearheaded the effort to insure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war." The U.S. continued to provide thi type of intelligence to Iraq until 1988. [Teicher Affidavit, Knight Ridder 2/24/1995; NBC News 8/18/02; New York Times 8/18/2002]


      1982. Iraq began using chemical weapons against Iran. [Shultz 1993, p. 238; see also Cole 1997, p. 87; Jentleson 1994 p. 48] By the end of the decade, some 100,000 people would die as a result the chemical warfare waged by the Iraqis [New York Times, 2/13/03].


      February 1982. The Reagan administration - despite stern objections from Congress- removed Iraq from the U.S. State Department`s list of states sponsoring terrorism. [Freudenheim, Slavin, Rhoden 2/28/1982; Washington Post 12/30/02; The Times 12/31/02] This cleared the way for future U.S. military aid to that country. [Financial Times 2/23/83 cited in Phythian 1997]


      1983. The U.S. State Department reported that Iraq`s support of terrorist groups continued unabated. [Jentleson 1994, pg. 52]


      1983. The Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 civilian Hughes helicopters to Iraq, in spite of the fact it was widely understood that the helicopters could be weaponized with little effort. Critics regarded the sale as military aid cloaked as civilian assistance. [Phythian 1997, pgs. 37-38]


      1983. Secretary of Commerce George Baldridge and Secretary of State George Shultz successfully lobbied the National Security Council (NSC) advisor to approve the sale of 10 Bell helicopters to Iraq in spite of objections from the rest of the NSC. It was officially stated that the helicopters would be used for crop spraying. These same helicopters were later used in 1988 to deploy poison gas against Iranians and possibly the Kurds. [Washington Post 3/11/1991; Phythian 1997, pgs. 37-38]


      1983. Iraq`s use of chemical weapons against Iran increased significantly. The U.S. was informed of Iraq`s use of chemical weapons later that year. [Shultz 1993, p. 238; see also Cole 1997, p. 87; Jentleson 1994, p. 48]


      "Early 80s." Diplomats brought photographs to the United Nations and several national capitals showing the swollen, blistered and burned bodies of injured and dead Iranians who had been victims of Iraqi chemical attacks. [New York Times, 2/13/03]


      1983. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt supplied Iraq with U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons with the secret approval of the Reagan administration. [Phythian 1997, pg. 35] President Reagan personally requested Italian Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to funnel arms to Iraq. [Friedman 1983, 51-54 cited in Phythian 1997, pg. 36]


      August 1983. Iraq was using mustard gas. It is not clear if the use of this weapon was known by the U.S. State Department and National Security Agency [Profile] at that time. [CIA Declassified Report ca. 1997]


      Late 1983. According to the memoirs of then Secretary of State George Shultz, U.S. intelligence began receiving reports that Iraq`s use of chemical weapons against Iran had increased . [Shultz 1993, p. 238; see also Cole 1997, p. 87; Jentleson 1994, p. 48]



      November 1, 1983. U.S. State Department official Jonathan T. Howe told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports indicated that Saddam Hussein`s troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW [Chemical Weapons]" against their Iranian adversaries. [Washington Post 12/30/02; The Times 12/31/02]



      December, 1983. By the end of 1983, 60 Hughes MD 500 "Defender" helicopters had been shipped to Iraq in spite of objections from four Republican Senators. The U.S. Department of Commerce had decided that the exporting of aircraft weighing less than 10,000 pounds to Iraq did not require an export license. [Middle East Defense News, 11/9/92]




      December 2, 1983. The U.S. State Department invited Bechtel officials to Washington to discuss plans for constructing an Iraq-Jordan oil pipeline. Former Bechtel president George Shultz was U.S. Secretary of State at the time. [Institute for Policy Studies, 3/24/03]



      December 19, 1983. President Reagan dispatched U.S. envoy to the Middle East Donald Rumsfeld, to express the administration`s intention to “resume [U.S.] diplomatic relations with Iraq.” [American Gulf War Veterans Association 9/10/2001]


      December 20, 1983. U.S. Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld, who at the time was CEO of the pharmaceutical company, Searle, personally met with Saddam Hussein in an attempt to reestablish diplomatic relations with Iraq.[See video footage; Newsweek 9/23/2002; NBC News 8/18/02; Washington Post 12/30/02; The Times 12/31/02] Other issues that were discussed included plans for the construction of an Iraq-Jordan oil pipeline to be built by Bechtel [Institute for Policy Studies, 3/24/03; New York Times, 4/14/03] and an Israeli offer to help Iraq in its war against Iran. [Teicher Affidavit; Newsweek 9/30/2001 cited in Baltimore Sun 9/26/2001] According to a declassified State Department cable, Rumsfeld “conveyed the President’s greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad.” [Newsweek 9/23/2002] Commenting on the meeting, Newsweek noted, "Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak.)" [Newsweek 9/23/2002] Declassified documents revealed that Rumsfeld`s trip happened at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran "almost daily" in defiance of international conventions.[Washington Post 12/30/02] On September 19, 2002, almost two decades later, Rumsfeld was questioned in Congress about this visit. He stated, "I was, for a period in late `83 and early `84, asked by President Reagan to serve as Middle East envoy after the Marines--241 Marines were killed in Beirut. As part of my responsibilities I did visit Baghdad. I did meet with Mr. Tariq Aziz. And I did meet with Saddam Hussein and spent some time visiting with them about the war they were engaged in with Iran. At the time our concern, of course, was Syria and Syria`s role in Lebanon and Lebanon`s role in the Middle East and the terrorist acts that were taking place. As a private citizen I was assisting only for a period of months." In his testimony he also denied any knowledge of the role the U.S. would play in helping Iraq develop its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons capabilities. [U.S. Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate) Page S8987-S8998]





      1984. The CIA secretly provided Iraqi intelligence with instructions on how to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [Washington Post 12/15/1986]


      August 1984. The CIA established a direct intelligence link with Iraq . [Washington Post 12/15/1986]


      February 1984. An Iraqi military spokesman warned Iran, "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide." [Washington Post 12/30/02]


      February 1984. Western journalists reporting on the war between Iraq and Iran verified the use of chemical weapons. [New York Times, 2/13/03]


      March 1984. European-based doctors examined Iranian troops and confirmed exposure to mustard gas. [Jentleson 1994 p. 76]



      March 1984. The United Nations dispatched experts to the conflict zone on a mission that documented Iraq`s use of chemical weapons. [Jentleson 1994 p. 76]


      March 6, 1984. The U.S. State Department reported that "available evidence" indicated Iraq was using "lethal chemical weapons", specifically mustard gas, against Iran. [Gwertzman 3/6/1984 cited in Cole 1997; pg. 24; New York Times, 2/13/03]



      March 9, 1984. U.S. State Department desk officer, Frank Riccuardone, urged the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with short-term loans "for foreign relations purposes." [Institute for Policy Studies, 3/24/03]


      March 20, 1984. U.S. intelligence officials claimed to have "incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass-producing the lethal chemical warfare agent" [Hersh 3/30/1984 cited in Cole 1997; pg. 243]

      March 23, 1984. Iran accused Iraq of poisoning 600 of its soldiers with mustard gas and Tabun nerve gas. On that same day, the UPI wire service reported that a team of UN experts had concluded that "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers. Meanwhile, Donald Rumsfeld held talks with foreign minister Tariq Aziz." [UPI 3-23-1984 cited in American Gulf War Veterans Association 9/10/2001]



      March 24. In a memo to Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State George Shultz expressed concern that relations with Iraq had soured because of the State Department`s March 6 report that Iraq was using chemical weapons. [Institute for Policy Studies, 3/24/03]


      March 26, 1984. The Reagan administration sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad again. [American Gulf War Veterans Association 9/10/2001] While in Iraq, Rumsfeld discussed the proposed Iraq-Jordan pipeline that was to be built by Bechtel. That same day, a UN investigation reported on Iraq`s use of chemical weapons against Iraq. "[C]hemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iraq by the specialists," the report said. [New York Times, 3/27/84 cited in Institute for Policy Studies, 3/24/03]



      April 6, 1984. During a meeting in Jordan with Iraqi diplomat Kizam Hamdoon, U.S. diplomat James Pecke in Jordan asked that Iraq halt its purchasing of chemical weapons from U.S. suppliers so as not to "embarrass" the U.S. [Institute for Policy Studies, 3/24/03]


      November 26, 1984. The United States Government re-established full diplomatic ties with Baghdad [Gwertzman 11-27-1984] even though it was fully aware that Iraq was using chemical weapons in its war against Iran.


      1985. Christopher Drogoul of the Atlanta branch of the Italian Banca Nazionale del Lavoro began embezzling funds to Iraq. The funds consisted of government backed loans meant for agricultural purposes as well as unreported loans that had been made in secret. While roughly half the funds were used by Saddam Hussein`s government to purchase agricultural goods, the remainder was used to "supply Iraqi missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs with industrial goods such as computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods." Additionally, the money spent on agriculture allowed Saddam`s regime to divert a significant portion of its own funds to the task of weapons development. [U.S. Congress, 4/28/92 H2694; Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 1993] Between 1985 and 1989 almost $5 billion made its way to Iraq from the U.S.. Memos obtained by reporters revealed that both the Federal Reserve and Department of Agriculture had suspected that Iraq was using these funds inappropriately. Iraq eventually defaulted on the government-backed loans, leaving U.S. taxpayers with $2 billion dollars in unpaid debts. [Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 1993; Mother Jones 2/1993]



      1985. U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz successfully convinced Rep. Howard Berman to drop a House bill that put Iraq back on the State Department`s list of states that sponsor terrorism. Shultz argued that the United States was actively engaged in "diplomatic dialogue on this and other sensitive issues," and asserted that "Iraq has effectively distanced itself from international terrorism." The Secretary of State further claimed that if the U.S. discovered any evidence implicating Iraq in the support of terrorist groups, the U.S. Government "would promptly return Iraq to the list." [Jentleson 1994 p. 54]


      Early -1985 thru late-1986. In addition to providing satellite photography to Iraq, which revealed the movements of the Iranian forces [Washington Post 12/15/1986; New York Times 8/18/2002], the U.S. secretly deployed U.S. Air Force officers to Iraq to assist their counterparts in the Iraqi military [The Nation 8/26/2002] as well as “more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency" who secretly provided "detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.” [New York Times 8/18/2002] The U.S. also provided Iraq with intelligence gathered by Saudi-owned AWACS, which were being operated by the Pentagon [The Nation 8/26/2002]. The information provided by the U.S. was considered essential to Iraq’s military planning [Washington Post 12/15/1986] as it resulted in Iraq`s improved "accuracy in targeting, hitting Iran`s bridges, factories, . . . power plants relentlessly, and . . . Iranian oil terminals in the Lower Gulf." [The Nation 8/26/2002]


      1986. The Central Intelligence Agency authored a then-classified report acknowledging that Iraq was using chemical weapons as an "integral part" of its military strategy and that it was a "regular and recurring tactic." [New York Times, 2/13/03]


      May 2 1986. “[T]wo batches of bacillus anthracis - the micro-organism that causes anthrax - were shipped . . . along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum - the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning”- to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]


      November 1986. U.S. intelligence learned that Iraq`s "Saad 16" research center was attempting to develop ballistic missiles. This information was relayed by the Defense Department’s Under Secretary for Trade Security Policy, Stephen Bryen, to the Commerce Department’s (CD) Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration. In spite of this, the Commerce Department subsequently approved more than $1 million in computer sales to the Iraqi research center over the next four years. In 1991, The House Committee on Government Operations reported that 40% of the equipment at the "Saad 16" research center had come from the U.S. [Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991, para.10. cited in Hurd and Rangwala 12-12-2002]


      April- March 1987. The United Nations dispatched experts to the conflict zone on a mission that documented Iraq`s use of chemical weapons. [Jentleson 1994 p. 76]


      August 31, 1987. One batch each of salmonella and E coli was sent to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries with the approval of the U.S. Department of Commerce. [Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]

      1988. The U.S. provided Baghdad with $500 million in credits to buy American farm products. [Wall Street Journal 7/10/2002]


      1988. The provision of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq expanded in 1988. A significant portion of it was channeled to the Iraqis through the CIA`s Baghdad office. [Francona 1999 cited in Washington Post 12/30/02]



      July 1988. The United Nations dispatched two delegations of experts to the conflict zone on a mission that documented Iraq`s use of chemical weapons. [Jentleson 1994 p. 76]


      January thru February 1988. The U.S. Commerce Department allowed for the export of equipment to Iraq for its SCUD missile program. Iraq`s acquisition of the new equipment allowed it to increase the range of its SCUD missiles. [Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991, para. 25 cited in Hurd and Rangwala 12-12-2002]


      March 1988. According to several accounts, Iraq used U.S.-supplied Bell helicopters [Washington Post 3/11/1991; Weinstein and Rempel 2/13/1991] to deploy chemical weapons during its campaign to recapture lost territories. One of the towns that was within the conflict zone was the Kurdish village of Halabja, which had a population of about 70,000. Between 3,200 and 5,000 Halabja civilians were reported killed that spring by poison gas. Other accounts, however, suggested that the Kurds at Halabja died from Iranian gas [Johnson and Pelletiere 12/10/1990; New York Times, 1/31/03] , an account that was at the time favored by the Reagan administration in order to divert the blame away from its Iraqi client-regime. While some believe that the story was "cooked up in the Pentagon," citing a declassified State Department document which had "demonstrate[d] that U.S. diplomats received instructions to press this line with U.S. allies, and to decline to discuss the details," [International Herald Tribune 1/17/03] Stephen Pelletiere, a former senior political analyst for the CIA, maintains the position that it was likely Iranian gas that killed the Kurds. [New York Times, 1/31/03]


      March-April 1988. The United Nations dispatched experts to the conflict zone on a mission that documented Iraq`s use of chemical weapons. [Jentleson 1994 p. 76]


      May 1988. During a symposium hosted by the U.S.-Iraq Business Forum, Assistant Secretary of State Peter Burleighin encouraged U.S. companies to do business in Iraq. The business forum reportedly had strong ties to the Baghdad. [Jentleson 1994 p. 84-85]


      August 1988. Iraq reportedly used chemical weapons against northern Iraqi Kurds. [Jentleson 1994 p. 38]


      Mid-August 1988. The United Nations dispatched experts to the conflict zone on a mission to document Iraq`s use of chemical weapons. [Jentleson 1994 p. 76] Baghdad refused to cooperate however, and the U.S. made no serious attempt to press Baghdad to comply with the UN’s Security Council’s decision. US Secretary of State George Shultz downplayed the charges against Iraq, saying that the interviews with the Kurdish refugees in Turkey, and “other sources,” only pointed toward Baghdad’s using chemical weapons, and were not conclusive in and of themselves. [The Nation 8/26/2002]


      September 8, 1988. In a memo concerning the issue of Iraq`s use of chemical weapons, Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote, "The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives. We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis." [Washington Post 12/30/02]


      September thru December 1988. According to a document published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, titled "Approved Licenses to Iraq, 1985-1990", "Reagan administration records show that between September and December 1988, 65 licenses were granted for dual-use technology exports. This averages out as an annual rate of 260 licenses, more than double the rate for January through August 1988." [cited in Jentleson 1994 p. 38]


      September 8, 1988. The U.S. Senate unanimously passed the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" [Jentleson 1994 p. 78] which made Iraq ineligible to receive U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, and items subject to export controls. It also made it illegal for the U.S. to import Iraqi oil. [U.S. Senate, "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988," 100th Congress, 2nd session, 8 September 1988 cited in Hurd and Rangwala 12-12-2001] Immediately after the bill was passed, the Reagan administration launched a campaign to turn it back. With the help of its allies in the House, the administration succeeded in killing the bill "on the last day of the legislative session." [Jentleson 1994 p. 78; see also New York Times, 2/13/03]


      Mid-to-late-1988. A U.S. delegation traveled to Turkey at the request of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and confirmed that Iraq "was using chemical weapons on its Kurdish population." [Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Chemical Weapons Use in Kurdistan: Iraq`s Final Offensive, October 1988 Hurd and Rangwala 12/12/2001]



      October 1988. The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmed concurrent and earlier reports that between 1984 and 1988 "Iraq [had] repeatedly and effectively used poison gas on Iran" [Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Chemical Weapons Use in Kurdistan: Iraq`s Final Offensive, October 1988 Hurd and Rangwala 12/12/2001]


      December 1988. "Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents," reported The Washington Post, adding that an "Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find `no reason` to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were `highly toxic` to humans and would cause death `from asphyxiation`." [Washington Post 12/30/02]


      March 1989. CIA director William Webster acknowledged to Congress that Iraq was the largest producer of chemical weapons in the world. [U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, "Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat: The Urgent Need for Remedies," Hearings, 101st Congress, 1st Session, 1 March 1989, pp. 27-45 cited in Jentleson 1994 p. 106]



      March 24, 1989. Secretary of State James Baker received a memo from the State Department informing him that Iraq was aggressively developing chemical and biological weapons, as well as new missiles. In spite of this disturbing intelligence, the memo also instructed Baker to express the administration`s "interest in broadening U.S.-Iraqi ties" to Iraqi Under-Secretary Hamdoon. [State Department memorandum, "Meeting with Iraqi Under Secretary Hamdoon," 24 March 1989, cited in Jentleson 1994 p. 107]


      1989. Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Tex) stated that in spite of the CIA and the Bush administration`s knowledge that Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization (MIMI) "controlled entities were involved in Iraq`s clandestine nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and missile programs ... the Bush administration [approved] dozens of export licenses that [allowed] United States and foreign firms to ship sophisticated U.S. dual-use equipment to MIMI-controlled weapons factories". [Statement by Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Tex), "Details on Iraq`s Procurement Network," 102nd Congress, 2nd session, 10 August 1992 cited in Hurd and Rangwala 12/12/2001]


      August 1989. Christopher Drogoul, the manager of the Italian Banca Nazionale del Lavoro`s branch in Atlanta, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq. The loans had been used by Iraq to develop its weapons programs. [Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 1993]


      October 2, 1989. By this date, all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq. Notwithstanding, President Bush signed National Security Directive 26 establishing closer ties to the Baghdad regime and providing $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees to that government. These funds allowed Iraq to continue its development of weapons of mass destruction. [U.S. President 10/2/1989; Frantz and Waas 2/23/1992; Wall Street Journal 7/10/2002]


      1990. In response to a U.S. company`s concerns that their product might be used by Iraq to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, the U.S. Department of Commerce simply asked Iraq`s government to provide a written guarantee that the company`s product was to be used for civilian purposes only. The Commerce Department told the company that a license and review was unnecessary, and that there was no reason why the product in question should not be exported to Iraq. [Jentleson 1994 p. 110]


      July 18 thru August 1 1990. The Bush administration approved $4.8 million in sales of advanced technology products to Iraq`s "MIMI" and "Saad 16" research centers. "MIMI" had been determined two years prior to be a development facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. And in 1989, the U.S. had learned that "Saad 16" was also involved in the development of chemical and nuclear weapons. [Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System" cited in Hurd and Rangwala 12/12/2001]


      July 25, 1990. U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Saddam Hussein and promised him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations." She also claimed that the president was an "intelligent man," adding, "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq." [Washington Post 12/30/02; The Times 12/31/02]


      August 1, 1990. The Bush administration approved the sale of $695,000 in advanced data transmission devices to Iraq. [Washington Post 3/11/1991]


      August 2, 1990. Iraq invaded Kuwait. This same day, the U.S. suspended National Security Directive 26, which had established closer ties with Baghdad and mandated $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees to that government. The directive had been put into force by President Bush less than one year before. [Frantz and Waas 2/23/1992]


      1992. The last shipment of Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin, was sent to Iraq. [Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]

      March 1992. Iraq received its last shipment from the U.S. of Pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas which can also be reverse engineered to create actual nerve gas. [Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]


      June 23, 1992. Frank DeGeorge, inspector general for the Commerce Department, conceded that the department`s officials had altered 66 export licenses for Iraq prior to turning them over to congressional investigators. The export licenses, which had approved the sales of vehicles to Iraq, were changed from "VEHICLES DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE" to "COMMERCIAL UTILITY CARGO TRUCKS." [Covert Action Quarterly]


      July 9, 1992. The House Judiciary Committee asked U.S. Attorney General William Barr to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Iraqgate. [Covert Action Quarterly]


      August 1, 1992. U.S. Attorney General Willliam Barr rejected the House Judiciary`s request for him to appoint an independent counsel, alleging that the committee`s accusations were too "vague". He informed them that the Justice Department would instead continue with its own "investigation" of Iraqgate. [Covert Action Quarterly]


      November 4-5, 1992. Rita Machakos, a paralegal at the Department of Justice`s employment office, witnessed an employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture "spending an entire weekend shredding documents that described the administration`s role in obtaining $5.5 billion in U.S.-taxpayer-guaranteed agricultural loans for Iraq from the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL)." [Mother Jones 2/1993]


      Categories.

      1 US complicity in the development of Iraq`s illegal weapons programs.
      a The U.S.

      i Summary.

      (A) According to congressional records from the early 1990s, the Reagan administration’s commerce department allowed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. companies exported chemical and biological agents to Iraq despite suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. It was later discovered that these agents did indeed significantly contributed to the country’s weapons arsenal. [Sunday Herald 9/8/2002; The Times 12/31/02] Iraq was even provided with anthrax and bubonic plague viruses. [Washington Post 12/30/02]



      ii Evidence.

      (A) Summary.

      (1) William Blum, a former employee of the State Department and author of the book, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World`s Only Superpower, revealed in an article first published in 1998 that “the furnishing of chemical and biological materials by the United States to Iraq . . . markedly enhanced Iraq`s CBW capability.” [Yellow Times 8/20/2002]

      (B) 1994 Senate Committee Reports. [May 25 report and October 7 report]

      (1) According to the reports, the U.S. Department of Commerce approved the export of the following agents to Iraq.

      (a) Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax. [Yellow Times 8/20/2002; Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]

      (b) Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin. It was sold to Iraq right up until 1992. [Yellow Times 8/20/2002; Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]

      (c) Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart. [Yellow Times 8/20/2002]

      (d) Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs. [Yellow Times 8/20/2002; Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]

      (e) Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness, gas gangrene. [Yellow Times 8/20/2002; Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]

      (f) Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic. [Yellow Times 8/20/2002; Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]

      (g) Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA. [Yellow Times 8/20/2002]

      (h) VX nerve gas. [Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]

      (i) Pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas which can also be reverse engineered to create actual nerve gas. This was sold to Iraq in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. [Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]

      (2) Additional US exports to Iraq, according the reports.

      (a) Examples.

      (i) Chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings. [Newsday 12/13/02]

      (ii) Chemical warfare filling equipment. [Newsday 12/13/02]

      (iii) Missile fabrication equipment. [Newsday 12/13/02]

      (iv) Missile system guidance equipment. [Newsday 12/13/02]

      (b) Other.

      (i) “Between 1985 and 1990 the US Commerce Department, for instance, licensed $1.5bn (£960m) of sales of technology which had military potential for Iraq.” [Scotsman 12/22/02]

      (3) The Committee established a direct connection between what was sold by the U.S. to Iraq and what was removed by UN inspectors.

      (a) Statments.

      (i) In May 1994 the committee reported that the agents “were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction” and then four months later, in another report, it revealed “that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program.” [Yellow Times 8/20/2002]

      (ii) Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said, “UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licences issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq`s chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development program.” He also explained that between January 1985 and August 1990, the “executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licences for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.” [Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]

      (C) A 1995 letter from the Centers for Disease Control.

      (1) Summary.

      (a) Business Week reported, “In 1995, the Center for Disease Control & Prevention provided to then-Senator Donald Riegel (D-Mich.) a complete list of all biological materials -- including viruses, retroviruses, bacteria, and fungi -- that the CDC provided to Iraq from Oct. 1, 1984 through Oct. 13, 1993. Among the materials on the list are several types of dengue and sandfly fever virus, West Nile virus, and plague-infected mouse tissue smears. In his letter to Riegel, then-CDC Director David Satcher wrote: `Most of the materials were non-infectious diagnostic reagents for detecting evidence of infections to mosquito-borne viruses’.” [Business Week 9/20/2002]

      (2) Read the Letter

      (3) Observations.

      (a) James Tuite, a former Senate investigator.

      (i) “We were freely exchanging pathogenic materials with a country that we knew had an active biological warfare program. The consequences should have been foreseen.” [cited in Business Week 9/20/2002]



      (D) Observations.

      (1) According to the reports, the shipments continued even after the gassing of the Kurds.

      (a) The Sunday Herald, summarizing the reports, explained, “The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.” [Sunday Herald 9/8/2002]



      iii The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s involvement in the export of agents to Iraq.

      (A) Summary.

      (1) According to congressional records from the early 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided several Iraqi sites with the biological agents Iraq used in its former illicit weapons programs. The agents that were exported were precursors of diseases such as anthrax, botulism, gangrene, and the West Nile virus. Iraq had claimed that the samples were to be used for legitimate medical research. [Associated Press 12/21/02].

      (B) Shipments.

      (1) “In 1986, the CDC sent samples of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod - used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin - directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna … The CDC also sent samples of a strain of West Nile virus to a microbiologist at a university in Basra in 1985, records show,” reported the Associated Press. [Associated Press 12/21/02]



      2 Western companies that helped build Iraq`s weapons arsenal .
      a U.S.

      i Biological.

      (A) American Type Culture Collection

      (1) Several biological precursor agents for diseases like anthrax, gangrene, and the West Nile virus. [Associated Press 12/21/02]



      ii Chemical.

      (A) Alcolac International

      (1) Thiodiglycol, the mustard gas precursor. [New York Times 12/21/02b]



      (B) Al Haddad

      (1) 60 tons of a chemical that could be used to make sarin. [New York Times 12/21/02b]




      (C) Dow Chemical.

      (1) "In December 1998, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents," reported The Washington Post, adding that an "Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find `no reason` to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were `highly toxic` to humans and would cause death `from asphyxiation`." [Washington Post 12/30/02]



      iii Nuclear. [Die Tageszeitung 10/18/02; Zmag 10/29/02; Memory Hole]

      (A) TI Coating

      (B) UNISYS

      (C) Tektronix

      (D) Leybold Vacuum Systems

      (E) Finnigan-MAT-US

      (F) Hewlett Packard

      (G) Dupont

      (H) Consarc

      (I) Cerberus (LTD)

      (J) Canberra Industries Inc.

      (K) Axel Electronics Inc.



      iv Rocket Program. [Die Tageszeitung 10/18/02; Zmag 10/29/02; Memory Hole]

      (A) Honeywell

      (B) TI Coating

      (C) UNISYS

      (D) Honeywell

      (E) Semetex

      (F) Sperry Corp.

      (G) Tektronix

      (H) Hewlett Packard

      (I) Eastman Kodak

      (J) Electronic Associates

      (K) EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc.



      v Conventional weapons. [Die Tageszeitung 10/18/02; Zmag 10/29/02; Memory Hole]

      (A) Honeywell

      (B) Spektra Physics

      (C) TI Coating

      (D) UNISYS

      (E) Sperry Corp.

      (F) Rockwell

      (G) Hewlett Packard [San Francisco Chronicle 1/28/03]

      (H) Carl Zeis -U.Ss

      (I) Union Carbide [Washington Post 12/30/02]



      vi Other:

      (A) “In addition to these 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq`s arms programs are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories.” [Die Tageszeitung 10/18/02; Zmag 10/29/02; Memory Hole; Democracy Now! 12/18/02; Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]



      b United Kingdom.

      i Nuclear.

      (A) Euromac Ltd-UK. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (B) C Plath-Nuclear. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (C) Endshire Export Marketing. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (D) International Computer Systems. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (E) MEED International. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (F) International Computer Limited. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (G) Matrix Churchill Corp. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (H) Ali Ashour Daghir. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (I) Inwako. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (J) XYY Options, Inc. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]



      ii Chemical.

      (A) MEED International. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]



      iii Rocket.

      (A) International Computer Systems. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (B) International Military Services. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (C) Sheffield Forgemasters. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (D) Technology Development Group. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (E) International Signal and Control. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (F) Terex Corporation. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (G) Walter Somers Ltd. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]



      iv Conventional.

      (A) International Computer Systems . [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (B) International Computer Limited. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]

      (C) TMG Engineering. [Sunday Herald, 2/23/03]



      3 The Reagan and Bush administrations facilitated the funneling of supplies to Iraq that contributed to its nuclear weapons development programs.
      a Summary.

      i Under the Reagan administration, the Department of Commerce approved numerous exports to Iraq that were integrated into that country’s nuclear weapons development program



      b Examples.

      i Computers to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons [Sub-committee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs of the House Committee on Government Operations, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991cited in Hurd and Rangwala 12/12/2002]

      ii Machine tools and lasers to extend ballistic missile range;[Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System", 2 July 1991, section "National Security vs. Export Promotion: Sales to Iraq," para. 16. cited in Hurd and Rangwala 12/12/2002]

      iii Graphics terminals to design and analyze rockets [Washington Post 3/11/1991]

      iv The Washington Post reported that “more than $1 million in computers, flight simulators and other technology products were licensed for sale to Saad 16, an Iraqi research center.” [Washington Post 3/11/1991]





      c Observations.

      i Nathaniel Hurd and Glen Rangwala [Hurd and Rangwala 12/12/2002] wrote: “Throughout the U.S. exports to Iraq, several agencies were supposed to review items relevant to national security or that could be diverted for a nuclear program. The reviewers included the SD, DOD, Energy Department, Subgroup on Nuclear Export Coordination (included representatives from Commerce Dept., Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), the intelligence community, and DOD) [Timmerman 1991, pp. 202 and 410 n5.] Sometimes CD did not send items to reviewers. On other occasions, reviewers objected, and CD still approved the items. Stephen Bryen, Deputy Under Secretary of DOD for Trade Security Policy during the second Reagan Administration, claimed that the DOD objected to 40% of applications that CD actually sent to DOD for review. Compare with a 5% DOD objection rate to dual-use technology applications for export to the U.S.S.R. during that same time period. [Jentleson 1994p. 79]”



      4 Iraq’s use of chemical weapons.
      a Summary.

      i Between October 1983 and 1988, Iraq reportedly deployed about 100,000 chemical weapons, consisting primarily of mustard gas, but also including cyanide gas. Iraq’s initial reason for using these weapons was ‘defensive’ – to repel the Iranian invasion. But after Iraq had successfully halted the offensive, it continued to use these weapons as a major component in their military operations. And in the spring and summer of 1988, Iraq - according to several accounts - used chemical weapons to recapture lost territories, including the now-often cited Kurdish town of Halabja, which had a population of about 70,000. Between 3,200 and 5,000 Halabja civilians were killed that spring by poison gas. (Some reports have argued that it was actually gas deployed by Iran that killed the civilians, [Johnson and Pelletiere 12/10/1990]) This is the incident that the Bush administration has referred to continually in their attempt to demonize Iraq, when they say that Saddam ‘gassed his own people’. But as is demonstrated below, at the time this slaughter occurred, the US government was fully aware that Iraq was using chemical weapons and that Iraq was possibly responsible for these civilian deaths. Despite this knowledge, the U.S. continued to supply Iraq’s military with key intelligence and planning. [The Nation 8/26/2002]



      b U.S. officials and their positions at the time Iraq was using chemical weapons

      i Ronald Reagan, president.

      ii George Bush Sr, vice-president.

      iii George P. Shultz, secretary of state.

      iv Frank C. Carlucci, defense secretary.

      v Colin Powell, national security advisor.

      vi Richard Armitage, senior defense official.

      vii Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

      viii Col. Walter P. Lang, senior defense intelligence officer.

      ix Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Envoy to the Middle East.



      c Geopolitical context, American interests.

      i Summary.

      (A) Iraq was at war with Iran. Defense officials with intimate knowledge of U.S. involvement in the Iranian-Iraqi conflict described the U.S. as “desperate” to prevent an Iranian victory over Iraq, which could have resulted in the Islamic revolution overrunning the oil-rich and strategically important gulf states of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. [New York Times 8/18/2002]



      ii Documents.

      (A) Affidavit by NSC staff member Howard Teicher dated January 1995 that was used in a civil case.

      (1) Teicher’s involvement.

      (a) Teicher had accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983

      (2) Summary.

      (a) “According to Teicher, the tilt towards Iraq began in the spring of 1982, about 18 months after Iraq invaded Iran in hopes of a quick victory over the Iranian mullahs. Iran, however, used the advantage of its huge population to gain the upper hand, raising fears in the Reagan administration of an Iranian surge through southern Iran and into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia,” explained NBC News. [Teicher Affidavit; NBC News 8/18/02]

      (3) Excerpts

      (a) “In the Spring of 1982, Iraq teetered on the brink of losing its war with Iran. .. In May and June, 1982, the Iranians discovered a gap in the Iraqi defenses along the Iran-Iraq border between Baghdad to the north and Basra to the south. Iran positioned a massive invasion force directly across from the gap in the Iraqi defenses. An Iranian breakthrough at the spot would have cut off Baghdad from Basra and would have resulted in Iraq’s defeat. … United States Intelligence, including satellite imagery, had detected both the gap in the Iraqi defenses and the Iranian massing of troops across from the gap. At the time, the United States was officially neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict. President Reagan was forced to choose between (a) maintaining strict neutrality and allowing Iran to defeat Iraq, or (b) intervening and providing assistance to Iraq. … In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive (“NSDD”) to this effect in June, 1982. I have personal knowledge of this NSDD because I co-authored the NSDD with another NSC Staff Member, Geoff Kemp. The NSDD, including even its identifying number, is classified” [NBC News 8/18/02; The Times 12/31/02]



      5 Description of U.S. aide to Iraq during the latter`s war with Iran
      a Aid from U.S. Government

      i Military.

      (A) Description

      (1) It was covert. [New York Times 8/18/2002]

      (2) U.S. Air Force officers were secretly deployed to Iraq to assist their counterparts in the Iraqi military. [The Nation 8/26/2002].

      (3) The U.S. provided satellite photography to Iraq revealing the movements of the Iranian forces. [New York Times 8/18/2002]

      (4) The U.S. provided Iraq with intelligence gathered by Saudi-owned AWACS, which were being operated by the Pentagon. The Nation 8/26/2002

      (5) According to The Washington Post, “Iraq reportedly used the intelligence to calibrate attacks with mustard gas on Iranian ground troops . . .” [Washington Post 12/15/1986]

      (6) The U.S. helped plan Iraq’s war plan, the New York Times revealed on August 18. It reported that according to “senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program”, “more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.” [emphasis added] [New York Times 8/18/2002]

      (1) In a 1995 affidavit, Howard Teicher who had accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983, described how both President Reagan and Vice President George Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein, both directly and through intermediaries. He stated in his affidavit that the United States “actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required.” [Teicher Affidavit; Washington Post 12/30/02] In the affidavit, he also wrote that the “United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat. For example, in 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein. Similar strategic operational military advice was passed to Saddam Hussein through various meetings with European and Middle Eastern heads of state. I authored Bush’s talking points for the 1986 meeting with Mubarak and personally attended numerous meetings with European and Middle East heads of state where the strategic operational advice was communicated.” In reporting on this affidavit, NBC News noted, “Critical to Iraqi success was finding a way to overcome Iran’s human wave attacks which persisted throughout the war, although Teicher’s affidavit gives no indication that the United States condoned the use of chemical weapons, which were used against those human-wave attacks. Nevertheless, the U.S. government certainly was aware of how important it was to Iraq to stop those human wave attacks.” [Teicher Affidavit; NBC News 8/18/02]

      (B) Observations.

      (1) As a result of U.S. military aid, “Iraq improved its accuracy in targeting, hitting Iran`s bridges, factories, . . . power plants relentlessly, and . . . Iranian oil terminals in the Lower Gulf.” [The Nation 8/26/2002]



      ii Research and training.

      (A) According to the censured portion of Iraq’s December 7, 2002 report to the UN, U.S. Government labs had "helped train Iraqi nuclear weapons scientists and provided nonfissile material to construct a nuclear bomb." The two government labs it named were Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories. [San Francisco Chronicle 1/16/03]



      iii Other.

      (A) In 1988, the U.S. had provided Baghdad with $500 million in credits to buy American farm products. Then, in 1989, the U.S. offered $1 billion in credits. (Powers 7-10-2002)

      (B) The Department of Commerce under the Reagan administration approved numerous exports to Iraq that were responsible for the development of that country’s development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. (see below)






      6 Reagan administration’s knowledge that Iraq was using chemical warfare.
      a Evidence.

      i Declassified documents.

      (A) On November 1, 1983, U.S. State Department official Jonathan T. Howe told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports indicated that Saddam Hussein`s troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW [Chemical Weapons]" against their Iranian adversaries. [Washington Post 12/30/02]



      ii Press reports.

      (A) An August article in The Nation, explained, “Iraq`s use of poison gases to regain the Fao Peninsula, captured by Iran in early 1986, was so blatant that the United Nations Security Council could no longer accept Baghdad`s routine denials. After examining 700 Iranian casualties, the UN team of experts concluded that Iraq used mustard and nerve gases on many occasions.” [The Nation 8/26/2002]

      (B) Prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Reagan administration had mobilized the House to block an attempt by the Senate to punish Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons, to which Iraq was a signatory. As noted by The Nation, “This led Saddam to believe that Washington was firmly on his side--a conclusion that paved the way for his invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War.” [The Nation 8/26/2002]

      (C) The August 18 edition of the New York Times reported that according to “senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program”, “Lt. Col. Rick Francona, now retired, was sent to tour the battlefield with Iraqi officers. . . . He reported that Iraq had used chemical weapons to cinch its victory. . . . Colonel Francona saw zones marked off for chemical contamination, and containers for the drug atropine scattered around, indicating that Iraqi soldiers had taken injections to protect themselves from the effects of gas that might blow back over their positions.” [New York Times 8/18/2002]

      (D) The August 18 edition of the New York Times reported that, according to “senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program”, “The American intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq`s use of chemical weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival.” [New York Times 8/18/2002; NBC News 8/18/02]

      (E) The August 18 edition of the New York Times reported that, according to “senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program”, “The Pentagon`s battle damage assessments confirmed that Iraqi military commanders had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested.” [New York Times 8/18/2002]

      (F) On August 18, NBC News reported, “Although U.S. officials deny that the United States looked the other way while Iraq used American intelligence data to plan chemical weapons assaults against Iran in the 1980s, there is evidence in declassified State Department cables and court records to indicate that even though the United States was aware that Iraq had used chemical weapons against Iranian troops, it was ready to help Iraq in thwarting Iranian ‘human-wave’ attacks. … The Iraqis used chemical weapons mainly to halt the Iranian ‘human wave’ attacks beginning in 1983, although they also used cluster bombs and fuel air explosives. Indeed, the record shows that in 1983, Rumsfeld — then President Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East, now secretary of defense — told senior Iraqi officials that the use of poison gas ‘inhibited’ normal relations between the two countries. Specifically, Rumsfeld’s trip was the subject of several State Department cables from 1983. Some of the language from the cables is redacted, and much of what remains is couched in diplomatic-speak.” [NBC News 8/18/02]



      7 How the Reagan administration responded to the fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons.
      a The August 18 edition of the New York Times reported that, according to “senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program”, “Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq`s employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program.” [New York Times 8/18/2002]

      b The August 18 edition of the New York Times interviewed “one veteran of the program,” who told the Times, that the Pentagon “wasn`t so horrified by Iraq`s use of gas. It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn`t make any difference.” [cited in New York Times 8/18/2002]

      c The August 18 edition of the New York Times reported that, according to “a former participant in the program”, “Senior Reagan administration officials did nothing to interfere with the continuation of the program.” [New York Times 8/18/2002]

      d A secret State Department assessment acknowledged, “Human rights and chemical weapons use aside, in many respects our political and economic interests run parallel with those of Iraq.” [Wall Street Journal 7/10/2002]

      e In August of 1988, the UN Security Council finally dispatched a team to Iraq to investigate its use of chemical weapons. Baghdad refused to cooperate however, and the U.S. made no serious attempt to press Baghdad to comply with the UN’s Security Council’s decision. US Secretary of State George Shultz downplayed the charges against Iraq, saying that the interviews with the Kurdish refugees in Turkey, and “other sources,” only pointed toward Baghdad’s using chemical weapons, and were not conclusive in and of themselves. [The Nation 8/26/2002] Not until the present has the U.S. taken such a critical stance against Saddam Hussein’s use of U.S.-supplied chemical weapons more than a decade ago.

      f In a September 1988 memo concerning the issue of Iraq`s use of chemical weapons, Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote, "The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives. We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis." [Washington Post 12/30/02]



      8 Responses by officials who were implicated in the allegations made by the NYT`s sources.
      a Responses by U.S. officials who were implicated in a New York Times article that suggested U.S. tacit approval of Iraqi use of chemical weapons.

      i Colin Powell, current secretary of state.

      (A) A spokesman told the NYT that its sources were “dead wrong” but declined to discuss it. [cited in New York Times 8/18/2002]



      ii Richard L. Armitage, current deputy secretary of state.

      (A) The New York Times reported that Armitage “used an expletive relayed through a spokesman” to deny that the U.S. has tacitly approved Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. [cited in New York Times 8/18/2002]



      iii Defense Intelligence Agency.

      (A) It offered no comments. [New York Times 8/18/2002]





      iv Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, currently retired.

      (A) He offered no comments. [New York Times 8/18/2002]



      v Frank Carlucci, currently chairman of the board at The Carlyle Group, a huge private investment fund heavily invested in defense.

      (A) He told the Times, “My understanding is that what was provided was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence. . . . I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages and doubt strongly that that occurred. . . . I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons.” [New York Times 8/18/2002]



      vi Colonel Lang, currently retired.

      (A) He told the New York Times that the Defense Intelligence Agency “would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival.” [New York Times 8/18/2002]



      vii Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration

      (A) “You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now. Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse.” [Teicher Affidavit; Washington Post 12/30/02]



      viii David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad

      (A) “Fundamentally, the policy was justified. We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein`s government would become less repressive and more responsible.” [Washington Post 12/30/02]


      b Donald Rumsfeld’s response to questions from Senator Robert Byrd.

      i Summary.

      (A) On Sept. 19, 2002, Senator Robert Byrd questioned Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about a Sept. 23, 2002 Newsweek article which had recalled Rumsfeld’s 1983 visit to Baghdad. The article had noted, “Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America’s big worry was Iran, not Iraq.” [U.S. Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate) Page S8987-S8998]



      ii Q&A.

      (A) First question.

      (1) Before reading the article to Mr. Rumsfeld, Byrd asked, “Mr. Secretary, to your knowledge, did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq War? Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?” [U.S. Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate) Page S8987-S8998]

      (B) Response.

      (1) “Certainly not to my knowledge. I have no knowledge of United States companies or government being involved in assisting Iraq develop chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.” [U.S. Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate) Page S8987-S8998]

      (C) Second question.

      (1) After reading the article to Mr. Rumsfeld, Byrd asked again, “Did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq War? Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?” [U.S. Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate) Page S8987-S8998]

      (D) Response.

      (1) “I have not read the article.. . . . I have never heard anything like what you`ve read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it.” [U.S. Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate) Page S8987-S8998]



      iii Complete transcripts. [U.S. Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate) Page S8987-S8998]



      c Reponses to an International Herald Tribune article reporting how the Reagan administration attempted to deflect the blame for gassing the Kurds away from the Iraqis.

      i Excerpt from the International Herald Tribune Article.

      (A) “In calling for regime change in Iraq, George W. Bush has accused Saddam Hussein of being a man who gassed his own people. Bush is right, of course. The public record shows that Saddam`s regime repeatedly spread poisonous gases on Kurdish villages in 1987 and 1988 in an attempt to put down a persistent rebellion.” [International Herald Tribune 1/17/03]

      “Analysis of thousan
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 22:05:10
      Beitrag Nr. 10.467 ()
      Monday, December 15, 2003
      War News for December 15, 2003

      Jede Meldung ein Link:
      http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/


      Bring ‘em on: US soldier killed while disarming roadside bomb near Baghdad.

      Bring ‘em on: Four US soldiers wounded in two separate ambushes in Kuwait.

      Bring ‘em on: Four Iraqi policemen wounded by car bombing in western Baghdad.

      Bring ‘em on: Eight Iraqi policemen killed in suicide bombing in Husseiniyah.

      Bring ‘em on: One US soldier wounded in bomb ambush at “undisclosed location” in Iraq.

      Bring ‘em on: US convoy ambushed near Tikrit.

      Bring `em on: Police station attacked with small arms, RPGs in Baghdad.

      Bring `em on: Uprising reported in Fallujah.

      Analysis: Lieutenant AWOL’s obsession with Saddam Hussein.

      Saddam’s capture may have little effect on insurgency. More here, and here.

      Capture cuts both ways. "So this arrest cuts both ways - many Iraqis who feared that Saddam would return to power might now be more willing to be seen to be helping the occupation; equally, as a Baghdad businessman, Faris Al-Hadi, put it, there are many Iraqis who support the resistance, but who were not prepared to help it while Saddam was on the run, lest they be seen to be supporting the former dictator."

      Report from Fallujah.

      Cheers to jeers in Iraq. "`It`s great that he`s caught, but it wasn`t him who screwed up the petrol and the electricity and everything else so badly, so now a canister of gas that was 250 dinars costs 4,000, if you can get one,` said Ghazi, a 52-year-old dentist, from his car as he queued with hundreds of other drivers waiting for petrol."

      Commentary

      Opinion: Partitioning Iraq would exacerbate Bush’s blunders.

      Opinion: From Thanksgiving to December 14, 2003.

      Casualty Reports

      Local story: Indiana soldier killed in Iraq.

      Rant of the Day

      The media has been treating the capture of Saddam Hussien like it’s VE Day.

      I’ve been following this war every day for the last seven months, and I’m a trained and experienced tactical analyst. I don’t see every spot report or intelligence summary; in fact, all I see are the press reports I find on the web. In the last seven days ending Saturday, there were an average of 21 attacks on US troops every day - and that doesn’t count attacks on Iraqi police the US command knows about and it damn sure doesn’t include the clandestine insurgent surveillance, logisitcs and communications functions we don’t know about but are still happening. There were four suicide bombings directed at US facilities last week. Every one was directed against a high-payoff target: a US division headquarters or a troop cantonment. All those activities are being coordinated, and the coordination is getting better. The insurgency is spreading.

      During Ramadan, there were an average of 35 attacks every day against US troops. That was quite an accomplishment from a tactical point of view. The ambushes are got much more sophisticated. Somebody coordinated all that activity; somebody recruits, somebody else runs supply, some other yahoo arranges target surveillance, and somebody’s in charge.

      If you bring me Saddam Hussein, an ADC or maybe his operations officer, and a shitload of communications gear I’d say you got something important. Bring me Saddam Hussein in his dirty pajamas, needing a bath and a shave, and I’d say you ain’t got shit because you just confirmed that the “dead-enders” aren’t important anymore.

      Worse, Saddam Hussein ran that country for 23 years. No dissent was tolerated. Iraqis remember what happened in 1991 when people rose up. I’d say that as long as Saddam remained uncaptured, he remained an implicit threat to any Iraqi who might want to rise up again. People feared him even while he was hiding. I doubt anybody fears L. Paul Bremer in the same way. I think in the next 30 days we may see the beginnings of a real civil war.

      Maybe for Lieutenant AWOL’s main priority - his precious political ass - that’s good. Now he can cut and run, handing over control to the IGC and calling it success. But it’s going to be a withdrawal like the British withdrew from Palestine in 1948 or the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. Company commanders and platoon leaders in Mosul, Sadr City and Najaf are going to hand over the firebase gate keys to the local warlord and hope they don’t get shot up too bad while they haul ass for the nearest aerial POE.

      But for the rest of us it’s going to suck. I hope I’m wrong, but I think we’re going to long rue the day we ever let Lieutenant AWOL change the regime in Iraq.



      As for the story of the capture, it’s really starting to smell funny. I really wish our press would start to ask questions instead of just parroting a story from an administration that has a long and established pattern of scripting, embellishing and lying.





      # posted by yankeedoodle : 2:37 AM
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 22:20:21
      Beitrag Nr. 10.468 ()




      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 23:31:13
      Beitrag Nr. 10.469 ()
      This article can be found on the web at
      http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031229&s=byrd


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Chellenging `Pre-emption`
      by SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

      [posted online on December 15, 2003]

      Remarks on the 138th Anniversary Celebration of The Nation Magazine, December 14, 2003, in New York City

      The older I get, the more I become convinced that wisdom is enhanced by age, and I think the same can be said of The Nation magazine. It is more than a good read. It has become, over the years, an essential publication and a voice for the loyal opposition that is needed today as perhaps never before.

      Tonight, I have been asked to speak about Iraq.

      Early this morning came news of the capture of Saddam Hussein. That is good news. Despite his fall from power many months ago, the specter of a possible return to power had cast a constant shadow over Iraq and the Iraqi people. I applaud the tenacious work of the military and intelligence communities for their success today.

      But that success does not diminish the challenges that remain in Iraq, and it certainly does not tamp the passions inflamed against the United States throughout the Muslim world by our actions in Iraq. The capture of Saddam Hussein will not be the keystone for peace in that volatile region. This day`s news does not lessen the danger that the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike poses to international peace and stability.

      In order to bring lasting stability to Iraq, that nation needs the help of the entire world, not just America and her fighting needs.

      As each day passes and as more American soldiers are killed and wounded in Iraq, I become ever more convinced that the war in Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. Contrary to the President`s rosy predictions--and the predictions of others in the Bush Administration--the United States has not been universally greeted as a liberator in Iraq. The peace--if one can use the term "peace" to describe the chronic violence and instability that define Iraq today--the peace is far from being won. Iraqi citizens may be glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, but they appear to be growing increasingly resentful that the United States continues to rule their country at the point of a gun.

      What a huge price we are now paying for the President`s bullheaded rush to invoke the unwise and unprecedented doctrine of pre-emption to invade Iraq, an invasion without provocation, an invasion without the support of the United Nations or the international community.

      It would be tragic enough if the casualties of the Iraq war were confined to the battlefield, but they are not. The casualties of this war will have serious repercussions for generations to come. Truth is one casualty. Despite the best efforts of the White House to contort the invasion of Iraq into an extension of the war on terror, there was never a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11. There was never a connection between Iraq and September 11. Not a single Iraqi was among the nineteen hijackers of those four planes. Despite dire warnings from the President, Saddam Hussein had at his fingertips neither the means nor the materiel to unleash deadly weapons of mass destruction on the world. Despite presidential rhetoric to the contrary, Iraq did not pose a grave and gathering menace to the security of the United States. The war in Iraq was nothing less than a manufactured war. It was a war served up to a deliberately misled and deluded American public to suit the neoconservative political agenda of the Bush White House.

      A lasting casualty is the international credibility and reputation of the United States of America. We have squandered the good will that had rallied to our side after the attacks of 9/11, attacks that struck just a few short blocks from where we sit tonight. At the end of that fateful day, the world was with us. The French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed, "We Are All Americans." But we squandered that good will. We turned our sights on Iraq and turned our back on the United Nations. As a result, in some corners of the world, including some corners of Europe and Great Britain, our beloved nation is now viewed as the world bully.

      Finally, and most disheartening to me, Congress allowed the Constitution to become a casualty of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. Congress allowed its constitutional authority to declare war to fall victim to this irresponsible strategy. Just a little more than a year ago, in October 2002, the Senate obsequiously handed to the President the constitutional authority to declare war. It failed to debate; it failed to question; it failed to live up to the standards established by the Framers. Like a whipped dog, the Senate put its tail between its legs and slunk away into the shadows, slunk away from its responsibility. Congress--and I mean both houses--Congress delegated its constitutional authority to the President and effectively washed its hands of the fate of Iraq. It is a dark and despicable mark on the escutcheon of Congress.

      The roots of this travesty can be traced directly back to the President`s doctrine of pre-emption, that cockeyed notion that the United States can pre-emptively attack any nation that for whatever reason may--may!--appear to pose a threat in the future. Not only is the doctrine of pre-emption a radical departure from the traditional doctrine of self-defense but it is also a destabilizing influence on world affairs. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a dangerous precedent. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a reckless policy. The rising tide of anti-Americanism across the globe is directly attributable to the fear and distrust engendered by this Bush doctrine of pre-emption.

      Yet too many Americans are willing--yes, even eager--to swallow the Administration line on pre-emption without examining it, without questioning it, without challenging it.

      Thank God for courageous institutions--like this one--which are willing to stand up to the tide of popular convention. I commend The Nation magazine for filling this vacuum, and I urge you to continue in your mission, without fear, without constraint, and with an unyielding commitment to truth.

      Today, for better or worse, the United States has embroiled itself in the future of Iraq. But that does not mean that we need to continue to be the lone wolf in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Administration`s latest edict to freeze out the French, German, Russian and Canadian companies from Iraq gives me little reason to hope that the President is even remotely interested in internationalizing the political, economic and security reconstruction effort. As a result, the White House continues to feed the perception throughout the world that Iraq`s reconstruction is a spoil of war. Reconstruction contracts, funded with $18.6 billion from the American taxpayer, seemingly have become kickbacks to those countries which dared not speak out--as Germany, France, Russia and Canada did speak out--against a policy of pre-emptive war.

      Like all roads to peace in the Middle East, the path to stability in Iraq may still face obstacles. We cannot precisely what those obstacles will be. But we must demand accountability from the Bush White House. We must continue to raise questions. We must continue to seek the truth. We must continue to speak out against wrongheaded policies and dangerous strategies.

      I am reminded of the closing lines from Tennyson`s "Ulysses":


      We are not now that strength which in old days...tho`
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are--
      One equal temper of heroic hearts,
      Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will,
      To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

      For my part, I will continue to speak out, I will continue to challenge, to question, and never to yield in defense of the Constitution, the United States Senate and the American people. For your part, I hope that The Nation magazine will sail on, always serving as an advocate for the truth and an antidote to the tide of imperialism that threatens to encompass our government. Congratulations on your remarkable achievements.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 23:37:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.470 ()
      Published on Monday, December 15, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
      Saddam’s Arrest Raises Troubling Questions
      by Stephen Zunes

      The capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein by U.S. occupation forces is likely to result in one of the world’s most brutal tyrants of recent decades finally facing judgment for his crimes against humanity. It has also boosted morale in an administration desperately trying to justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq which they initially justified on false pretenses. While U.S. allegations that Iraq actively supported the Al-Qaeda terrorist network and possessed weapons of mass destruction in the months prior to the U.S. invasion appear to have been deliberate falsehoods, no one can challenge the fact that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator.

      Unfortunately, Saddam’s capture will not likely improve the situation for U.S. occupation forces or for those seeking justice against war criminals.

      The Impact on the U.S. Occupation

      Saddam Hussein’s capture is not likely to reduce armed resistance to U.S. occupation forces. While some of the guerrillas have clear ties to Baathist elements associated with the former regime, Saddam was not directing guerrilla operations against American forces. He has no experience in guerrilla warfare and his military titles were exclusively those he awarded to himself. (As a young man, he was denied admittance into Iraq’s military academy.) Furthermore, there are no indications that the hide-out from which he was captured had any communications equipment capable of directing military operations.

      Furthermore, most independent observers believe that the vast majority of the ongoing Iraqi resistance is based upon popular opposition to the U.S. occupation, not out of support for the former regime. Therefore, Saddam Hussein’s capture will not likely dampen the opposition.

      Nor will it lead to greater cooperation by Iraqis toward American occupation forces. The failure of more Iraqis to cooperate is not, as U.S. officials have asserted, because they feared Saddam Hussein would return to power. After alienating the vast majority of his own people through years of brutal and arbitrary rule before going down in ignominious defeat, it was hard to imagine him ever returning to power, even if U.S. occupation forces were eventually driven out.

      The biggest fear among Iraqis is not what Saddam might do to those who work with U.S. forces but what other Iraqis might do to them if they are perceived as being collaborators with a foreign occupier. An even bigger reason why more Iraqis are not cooperating with the United States is simply their widespread opposition to the U.S. occupation itself. Saddam’s capture will not likely change that situation either.

      While in power, Saddam cynically manipulated the Iraqi people’s sense of nationalism and resentment toward Western imperialism as key components in his effort to build a totalitarian state and the cult of personality he built around himself. That does not mean, however, that that sense of nationalism no longer has widespread appeal among ordinary Iraqis. While Saddam Hussein may have been to Baathism what Josef Stalin was to Marxism, that doesn’t mean that the U.S. occupation of Iraq won’t end up looking like the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

      This is why even Saddam Hussein’s harshest critics in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world are experiencing such mixed emotions – joy and relief that the tyrant is in custody but a great uneasiness that his capture was engineered by U.S. occupation forces that illegally invaded and occupied a sovereign Arab nation.

      What Kind of Justice?

      As one of the most notorious dictators and war criminals of recent decades, international human rights groups and prominent jurists have called upon the United States to hand over Saddam Hussein to a United Nations-sponsored international tribunal to be tried for crimes against humanity.

      Such a UN-backed tribunal, consisting of both local and international jurors, has indicted former Liberian President Charles Taylor, the notorious African war lord who is responsible for at least as many deaths as Saddam Hussein. Special UN-sponsored war crimes tribunals have also been set up to prosecute leaders and perpetrators of the 1994 Rwandan genocide as well as those responsible for ethnic cleansing and other war crimes in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, including former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

      However, the Bush Administration has refused to consider such an option in this case, instead stating its intent to turn Saddam Hussein over to a special tribunal set up by the Iraqi Governing Council, a group of pro-Western Iraqi exiles and local representatives of the country’s various ethnic communities appointed by U.S. occupation authorities. The regulations for the five-person tribunal were drafted largely by U.S. government lawyers who pointedly ruled out any direct role for the United Nations in the process.

      Furthermore, while the death penalty would not be an option in the proposed international tribunal, it would be a likely outcome in the U.S.-organized proceedings. In virtually every country in recent decades where a dictatorship was overthrown in a popular uprising, one of the first acts of the new government has been to abolish the death penalty. This is not likely to occur in Iraq, however, where the government was thrown out by invading forces from the United States, the only Western industrialized democracy that still executes its prisoners.

      Even though a trial as U.S. occupation authorities envision may be procedurally fair and even though Saddam Hussein certainly deserves to be brought to justice, he will likely be tried under a body set up by an occupation authority of a foreign government that illegally invaded the country. As a result, Saddam’s eventual punishment – however well-deserved – will not advance the cause of justice. It will be widely seen as a kind of “victor’s justice,” where Saddam Hussein is perceived to be tried not because of an objective assessment of the seriousness of his crimes – such as a prosecution under the International Criminal Court or some other UN-sponsored tribunal – but because he was on the losing side of a war.

      For example, one of Saddam’s principal war crimes for which he is likely to be prosecuted is the genocidal Anfal campaign against Iraq’s Kurdish minority in the 1980s, which resulted in deaths of more than 80,000 civilians and the destruction of more than 4000 villages.

      The Bush Administration appears to be in no hurry, however, to prosecute Turkish officials for their genocidal campaign against that country’s Kurdish minority during the 1990s, where over 3000 Kurdish villages were destroyed and over two million Kurds became refugees in an operation in which more than three-quarters of the weapons were of U.S. origin. The U.S.-backed war cost over 40,000 lives, primarily Kurdish civilians. President Bill Clinton and Congressional leaders of both parties successfully blocked efforts by human rights groups to stop U.S. support for the repression.

      Indeed, the United States has repeatedly demonstrated its lack of concern regarding war crimes when the perpetrator is an ally.

      For example, Indonesia`s General Suharto, who ruled his predominantly Muslim Southeast Asian nation for 34 years, has even more blood on his hands than does Saddam Hussein. He oversaw the purges of suspected leftists in the mid-1960s which took over a half million lives. His invasion and occupation of East Timor ten years later resulted in the deaths of 200,000 people, more than one hundred times the estimated number of Kuwaitis killed under the 1990-91 Iraqi occupation of that oil-rich sheikdom. Yet Suharto was a favorite ally of the United States under both Republican and Democratic administrations until the dictator was ousted by his own people in a largely nonviolent popular uprising in 1998. He currently lives in comfortable retirement with absolutely no efforts by the United States to bring him to justice.

      The United States helped stymie efforts to prosecute its one-time ally General Augusto Pinochet, despite widespread crimes against humanity during his bloody rule in Chile. The Bush Administration – with bipartisan support in Congress – has also given strong diplomatic, military and financial support for Israel’s right-wing prime minister Ariel Sharon, who has been responsible for a series of war crimes over several decades.

      Meanwhile, the Bush Administration – again, with bipartisan Congressional support – has consistently sought to undermine the International Criminal Court (ICC), established in July 2002, in the apparently belief that the United States alone has the right to determine who gets to be tried for war crimes and who does not. For example, Congress overwhelmingly passed a law in 2002 that prohibits U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court, restricts U.S. participation in UN peacekeeping operations to situations where U.S. forces are explicitly exempt from prosecution for any war crimes, bans the sharing of U.S. intelligence with the ICC, prohibits most foreign aid to countries that ratify the ICC statute and authorizes the President to use “all means necessary and appropriate” to free from captivity “any U.S. or allied personnel held by or on behalf of the ICC,” including a military attack on The Hague.

      The message seems to be that a war criminal will only be brought to justice if he challenges U.S. foreign policy prerogatives. By contrast, if a war criminal is an American ally, he is not only safe but will be openly supported.

      Even putting aside the moral and legal questions raised by such a policy, these double-standards are likely to make Saddam Hussein come across to many as more of a martyr and victim of U.S. imperialism than the war criminal that he is. According to Harold Koh, a Yale law professor who served as assistant secretary of State in the Clinton Administration, "The image of him in the dock day after day will become a human symbol of the humiliation many Iraqis feel their country is being subjected to."

      As long as the United States opposes the International Criminal Court and uses the prosecution of war criminals as a sinister political tool rather than a universal principle of justice, the impact of a trial could be to increase the polarization and resistance in Iraq rather than help mend a nation which has suffered so much from dictatorship, war, sanctions and occupation.

      The United States and Saddam Hussein

      Modern Iraq is a creation of British colonialists who established control over the territory following the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, essentially creating the country from three Ottoman provinces. A nationalist coup in 1958 overthrew the pro-British monarch, limiting Western influence in the country and shifting the ideological orientation toward left-wing nationalism. The Baath Party – espousing pan-Arab nationalism, socialism and anti-imperialism – first seized power in 1963. Saddam Hussein rose to prominence in the late 1970s, purportedly with quiet U.S. support, since he favored shifting Iraq’s foreign policy away from its pro-Soviet position to that of non-alignment.

      Despite imposing a brutal totalitarian system and a cult of personality around his leadership, the United States joined the Soviets, French and British in recognizing Iraq’s importance in the regional balance of power. All maintained a largely cooperative relationship with Saddam Hussein’s exceptionally oppressive regime, much to the chagrin of human rights advocates. While U.S. officials never considered the Iraqi regime an American ally, as some critics have claimed, Iraq was nevertheless seen as a strategic asset with which the United States could cooperate throughout the regime’s dramatic military buildup in the 1980s.

      Ironically, many of the organizations and individuals now calling for a UN-sponsored proceeding were active in exposing Saddam’s human rights abuses back in the 1980s while the U.S. government was covering them up.

      The March 1988 massacre at Halabja – where Iraq government forces killed upwards to 5000 civilians in that Kurdish town by gassing them with chemical weapons – was downplayed by the Reagan Administration, even to the point of claiming that Iran, then the preferred American enemy, was actually responsible. The Halabja tragedy was not an isolated incident, as U.S. officials were well aware at the time. UN reports in 1986 and 1987 documented Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, which were confirmed both by investigations from the CIA and from U.S. embassy staff who visited Iraqi Kurdish refugees in Turkey. However, not only was the United States not particularly concerned about Saddam’s ongoing repression and the use of chemical weapons, the United States actually was supporting the Iraqi government’s procurement effort of materials necessary for the development of such an arsenal.

      Furthermore, officials from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency were stationed in Baghdad to pass on satellite imagery to the Iraqi military in order to help them target Iranian troop concentrations, in the full knowledge that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian forces.

      During the 1980s, American companies, with U.S. government backing, supplied Saddam Hussein’s government with much of the raw materials for Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs. A Senate committee reported in 1994 that American companies licensed by the U.S. Commerce Department had shipped large quantities of materials usable in weapons production in Iraq, noting that such trade continued at least until the end of the decade, despite evidence of Iraqi chemical warfare against Iranians and Iraqi Kurds. Much of this trade was no oversight. It was made possible because the Reagan Administration took Iraq off of its list of countries supporting terrorism in 1982, making them eligible to receive such items. This re-designation came in spite of Iraq’s ongoing support of Abu Nidal and other terrorist groups.

      As late as December 1989, just eight months prior to Iraq’s designation as an enemy for having invaded Kuwait, the Bush Administration pushed through new loans to the Iraqi government in order to facilitate U.S.-Iraqi trade. Meanwhile, according to a 1992 Senate investigation, the Commerce Department repeatedly deleted and altered information on export licenses for trade with Iraq in order to hide potential military uses of American exports.

      For many years, human rights activists have called upon the United States to get tough with Saddam Hussein’s regime. Iraq’s invasion of Iran, support for international terrorism, and large-scale human rights violations were all valid grounds for military sanctions. Perhaps most significant was Iraq’s use of chemical warfare against both Iranian troops and the country’s civilian Kurdish population during the 1980s – by far the largest such use of these illegal weapons since World War I. The response of the world’s nations was a major test as to whether international law would be upheld through the imposition of stringent sanctions or other measures to challenge this dangerous precedent. The United States, along with much of the world community, failed. U.S. agricultural subsidies and other economic aid flowed into Iraq and American officials looked the other way as much of these funds were laundered into purchasing military equipment. The United States also sent an untold amount of indirect aid – largely through Kuwait and other Arab countries – which enabled Iraq to receive weapons and technology to increase its war-making capacity and repressive apparatus.

      When a 1988 Senate Foreign Relations committee staff report brought to light Saddam Hussein’s policy of widespread killings of Kurdish civilians in northern Iraq, Senator Claiborne Pell introduced the Prevention of Genocide Act to put pressure on the Iraqi government. However, the Reagan Administration successfully moved to have the measure killed.

      It is also important to note that the devastation to Iraq’s military capabilities caused by the Gulf War bombing, military sanctions and inspections regime – combined with the safe haven created for the Kurds in northern Iraq by the United Nations – resulted in a substantial reduction in Saddam Hussein’s repression during the past dozen years as compared with the first half of his rule.

      In other words, the vast majority of the war crimes committed by Saddam’s regime took place during the period in which he was supported by the U.S. government. This may be the primary reason why the United States objects to any kind of international tribunal, since it would more likely bring the U.S. role in Saddam’s repression to light than a trial set up by the Bush Administration’s appointed Iraqi surrogates.

      Finally, it should be noted that the twelve-year U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, combined with the destruction of much of the country’s civilian infrastructure during the devastating five-week U.S. bombing campaign in early 1991, contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians – primarily children – from malnutrition and preventable diseases.

      Given that the public health impact of such policies was well-documented for more than a decade, a case can be made that those U.S. officials responsible for such policies could themselves be guilty of war crimes and should – like Saddam Hussein – face justice in an international tribunal.

      Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project www.fpif.org and is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism www.commoncouragepress.com
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 23:46:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.471 ()
      From AxisofLogic.com
      http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_3981.shtml
      Critical Analysis
      Axis of Logic Exclusive - The Enemy Within: The NeoCon Hijacking of America, Manuel Valenzuela, December 15, 2003
      By Manuel Valenzuela
      Dec 15, 2003, 12:03


      [The foreign strategy of the US must be]: "... unapologetic, idealistic, assertive and well funded. America must not only be the world`s policeman or its sheriff, it must be its beacon and guide. Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

      - Defense Planning Guidance developed in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz, endorsed as PNAC ideology and now established Bush foreign policy.



      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

      - Benito Mussolini



      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      "What kind of victory is it when someone is left defeated? What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy What is a war criminal? Was not war itself a crime against God and humanity, and, therefore, were not all those who sanctioned, engineered and conducted wars, war criminals? The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong Non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty."

      - Gandhi



      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Deep in the halls of Washington a putrid wind of sweeping ideology festers, swirling like a hurricane from the Atlantic seaboard, becoming a tornado in the frozen tundras of the Midwest, an impenetrable and monstrous fire wall consuming vast tracts of open expanse in the West and a sweltering drought drying up the nation s future. This phenomenon has engendered itself onto an American landscape that remains oblivious as to its dark and ominous designs for the country and the world. The neo-conservative movement it is called, an ideology fostered by a cabal of powerful and influential members of the establishment that today sit at or near the top of the White House, Pentagon, National Security Agency and State Department. Like a virus that was given new life, the once dormant group, for years denied the claws of power, suddenly awoke and spread through all levels of the US government with the appointment of George W. Bush in 2000. This cabal of Machiavelli and autocratic-style believers of power is now deeply entrenched in the highest positions of our government, determining policy and the direction our government and by consequence our nation is headed in.

      The names might sound familiar. Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, James Woolsley, Lewis Libby, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Frank Gafney, William Kristol, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and many, many others. Think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) spew their ideology. Media such as Fox News and periodicals such as the Weekly Standard rant their propaganda. Like vultures waiting to feed off a dead carcass they surround the president, hissing commands and suggestions as to how the country will be run. This government behind the government is responsible for our quagmire in Iraq; it is responsible for our unilateralist foreign policy and our unyielding support for Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right-wing Likud Party. The neocons are responsible for alienating the world against us. Their agenda has usurped the interests and the goals of the people, the expertise and suggestions of Pentagon generals and analysts, the policy making ability of lifetime State Department brokers, CIA, NSA, DIA and other intelligence agencies findings and conclusions and the overall will of the world community. The cabal has since 2000 taken all the steps necessary to indoctrinate us to a new world order in their quest to impose a global ideology that is forever altering the future course of world events.

      September 11, 2001 will be the date history will remember in infamy as the day the world s landscape changed. It was the day the salivating neocons had been waiting for, gleefully licking their chops at the coming feast they knew awaited. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor they needed in order to impose their twisted ideology of empire building through perpetual pre-emptive warfare onto the world. They now had a vulnerable and mourning population to begin molding. An American public that feared like never before was all too easy to manipulate. Seen on live TV by almost every American, from a plethora of camera angles, from beginning to end, 9-11 became the call to arms, the trumpet mobilizing both fear and patriotism onto a deeply affected populace. The corporate media shoved the horrors of that day down our throats for months on end through a constant bombardment of psychologically sensitive images and messages that ingrained in our minds the need to seek revenge through warfare. We had been attacked, and we now had to blindly follow the policy makers down the ever-widening road to Pax Americana.

      An enemy was designated and the bombing of mud-brick-shacks and stone-carrying-camels began. Ceaseless government and corporate media propaganda made sure we believed the enemy was dying in large numbers, that the Taliban and al Qaida were suffering and that we were winning the "war on terror." In fact, only ordinary Afghanis were suffering at the hands of the military industrial complex. Leveling to the ground a country that was already living in the Stone Age did not satisfy BushCo., however, and the neocon favorite bad guy and one time ally, Saddam Hussein, was put in the crosshairs of the war party machine.

      Hussein and Iraq had been on the scope of the neocon tentacles since the end of Gulf War I. They had unsuccessfully lobbied the Clinton Administration for a direct invasion of the beleaguered nation and with Bush they finally had a loyal puppet. With dilapidated, rusting and obsolete Soviet weaponry along with years of UN weapons inspections, combined with a decade of economic genocide that was UN sanctions, Saddam posed no substantial military threat in the region, much less to the US. Iraq was therefore an easy target of opportunity from which to launch the neocon vision of imperial supremacy.

      Seen as the easiest of wars to win, Iraq was conquered in short order, thereby assuring the US of a central strategic base of operations from which to control the Middle East and Central Asia. Government-insider neocons assured that government policymakers consented to the invasion both through pressure on intelligence analysts to synthesize only that intelligence seen as beneficial to the neocon strategy and through stovepiping intelligence directly to the top, thereby bypassing stricter channels of scrutiny. In the Pentagon, Douglas Feith s Office of Special Plans was put in charge of cherry-picking and cooking questionable intelligence, later sexing it up for the case against Iraq.

      Distortions, manipulation and propaganda was used in concert with the corporate media to inculcate into the American conscious the lies given as pretexts to invade Iraq. WMD s, freedom, imminent threat, nuclear capabilities, spawning democracy; all were excuses justifying the war, all were lies. But a drone-like citizenry absorbed it all and remained inert automatons of ignorance while the neocon onslaught was unleashed. An unjust war based on fear commenced. Fear was and still is the neocon s greatest weapon, and its use continues to assure allegiance from the masses that, even to their great detriment, remain willing supporters of the neoconartist policies.

      With the notion of empire comes the idea of resource control as a way to maintain US hegemony, and in Iraq the neocons, the military industrial complex and the American oil/energy cartel, all being heavily infiltrated inside the Bush Administration and throughout the corridors of government, saw the second largest oil reserves in the world. Control of these vital fields of black gold also meant control of world petroleum supplies, itself a form of economic control over the markets of the world. One needs look no further than Saudi Arabia and OPEC to see the power oil yields on the world stage. The US now has the ability to feed itself all the oil it wants and the ability to affect oil prices and output through its direct manipulation and control of any Iraqi puppet government. Iraqi oil can now feed the neocon/corporate oligarch war machine and subsidize its quest for empire.

      In the case of Afghanistan, Bush s oil friends and the US government have for years dreamed of a pipeline that will run from the vast new oil fields in the Caspian Sea region through Afghanistan and into US-friendly Pakistan. Under almost-exclusive American control, these pipelines will yield substantial amounts of oil and gas. This geostrategic venture is designed to circumvent pipelines being built that traverse from Caspian Sea nations into Russia, China and non-ally Iran. These pipelines, if allowed to function out of the Central Asian oil fields, would become rivals to the US planned oil/gas extraction pipes running through Afghanistan. Without an American pipeline running through the backward nation, the US would be forced to pay higher prices for oil or gas from these rival or non-friendly nations and would also have no control over distribution supplies. It was imperative that a US pipeline be built.

      For US continued economic dominance, therefore, it was essential to create a US-friendly Afghanistan that would allow for the flow of oil and gas to run through its territory. In the year leading up to 9/11, both the Administration and oil industry had been in negotiations with the Taliban for such an investment. As such, the US appointed puppet, Hamid Karzai, was once a top advisor for Unocal, helping arrange an accord with the Taliban for building an American oil consortium pipeline (CentGas) through Afghanistan. When the Taliban balked at the negotiating table they were threatened with an already planned invasion of the country. Luckily for BushCo, 9/11 emerged, making it the perfect launching pad from which to initiate the neocon and oilgarchy s desired assaults on nations whose oil and strategic placements were needed for the their master plan of world domination. Today, an oil/gas pipeline is quickly being built in Afghanistan by an American oil consortium.

      A central tenet of the neocon dream of a Pax Americana was control of centrally-located Iraq where the US would eventually construct three to four permanent military bases, a process that is becoming a reality today. These bases will enable US hegemony throughout the region, including control of the now US-friendly Central Asian nations eager for American energy conglomerate investment. With Iraq s oil reserves safely in American hands, US military strength can now, like a hawk overlooking its territory, keep an ever-watchful eye on the Eurasian regions of most interest to the neocon agenda.

      The idea of a democratized Middle East, an important though illusory doctrine of the neocon ideology, was to begin with Iraq, which would act as a catalyst to the eventual domino effect expected throughout the region. That the idea of democracy in Iraq and the Arab world is but a hollow fallacy is of little importance to the neocon goals. Real democracy will never be allowed to prosper by Bush due to the threat of theological or fundamentalist elected mandates picked by the majority of the people. With the exponentially growing levels of anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli feelings running uncontrolled throughout the Muslim world, democracy will at the most mean the installation of cronies and puppets friendly to both the US and Israel under the guise of democracy. This plan assures American and Israeli control of the Middle East, forcing Arab nations to accept Israel s hegemony over the region. In reality, the mirage of democracy in the Middle East is but a propaganda tool being used to manipulate the population in the US into remaining passive believers of an otherwise surreptitious assault on world sovereignty.

      A central objective of the neocon agenda is increasing the power of Israel. Indeed, many of the so-called neocons have deep-seated connections, interests and relationships with the right-wing Likud party and with other Israeli fringe groups. Many are die-hard Zionists, true believers in Israeli hegemony over the Middle East, if not the world. From their government offices they direct US foreign policy in favor and in direction of Israel, supporting the Sharon government and assuring that US and Israeli interests are placed above that of the rest of the world. The attack on Iraq was in no small measure a war to defend Israel s interests, thereby helping it increase its power over the Middle East. A large part of the neocon vision for the Middle East is for the benefit of the Jewish state, to assure for its survival and expansion, if not territorially, then economically. This fact must not be forgotten: the neocons oftentimes place the interests of Israel and Likud ahead of those of the US. The rogue government is in many ways making us subservient to Israel s Likud party run by Ariel Sharon.

      Though not publicly discussed, the neocon/Likud vision for Israel may potentially include the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians into Syria or Jordan, thereby assuring Zionists of an Arab free Israel with sovereignty over the lands of "Judea and Samaria" that many Jews believe have been biblically promised them. With this diaspora of peoples might come a geopolitical shifting of borders and the creation of new nation states that would be less powerful and easier to control. Iraq, for example, might one day be split into three separate nations; one for Kurds, one for Shi a and one for the Sunni. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria might also be reshuffled to suit American and Israeli interests.

      The next targets for the neocons, now being slowly inculcated into our consciousness, are Syria and Iran. These two nations would most likely be invaded in Bush s second term, thus increasing US and Israeli dominance over the Middle East. Under the guise of "fighting terrorism" in the continued "war on terror," both nations would be targeted and attacked after a massive propaganda campaign designed to incriminate both governments in the eyes of the masses. Once invaded, they will be installed with puppet regimes or monarchs friendly to both the US and Israel. The next stage in the imperial plan would thus be complete.

      Empire building, neocon style, entails the art of subverting all threats, perceived and real, present and future, that might rise to challenge US dominance. Among the future threats the neocon Machiavellis foresee in their magical fortune-telling crystal ball are those presented by China, Russia and the European Union. Inherent in the neocon daydream is the desire to undermine Eurasian economic development that combines the three powerful political entities mentioned above. The danger and very real worry concerning the cabal of crazies is that under their control no nation will be allowed to compete militarily, politically or economically with the United States. It means pre-emptive action against challenges and threats to US hegemony through military might and economic warfare. Even the sacred zenith that is space has been designated a new frontier for warfare. In the neocon world, only one power will be allowed to stand among the fraternity of nations, and that is the US. There can be no rivals, no close second. If a nation challenges, it will be dealt with.

      What we are witnessing is the creation by a group of autocrats an oligarchs of an unstable world order where the US will in essence have control of those nations and regions rich in natural resources that will be desperately needed for the continued growth of the economic engine and the corporate Leviathan that runs this country. With world resources such as oil and water being depleted more every year through our insatiable demand, the modernizing of China, India, Indonesia and Latin America and the continued increase in the world s population, dominant countries such as China and regions such as the European Union will increasingly compete with us for a share or indeed the entire pie of the unsustainable quantity of resources. To the neocons, this must not be allowed to come to fruition.

      The nation-state, with its invisible borders and self-serving interests, will force upon us a most ominous future. Given the destructive power of today s weapons, the technology at a country s disposal and the widening perversion and corruption of a nation s leaders through the demons inherent in capitalism, we find ourselves immersed in one of the most dangerous times in world history. We have entered a new mutated form of Cold war: the Greed War. The neocon unilateralist approach is widening our differences with the world, provoking an escalating arms race and a sprint to establish strategic base locations, a military presence and puppet regimes in those areas of the world that are increasingly seen as vital for the continued growth and prosperity of a country.

      Such is the case today with the Central Asian nations enveloping or near the Caspian Sea region. If not yet familiar with this region, you should. It is the next Middle East, but more volatile due to both the proximity and economic viability of Russia and China bordering it on the periphery. Its estimated oil reserves are right behind those of the Persian Gulf states and thus of extreme vital importance to today s dominant players. Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia are all becoming part of the grand game of geopolitical chess being played out by the US, Russia, China and to a lesser extent the European Union. To the victor go the spoils, and with oil becoming a dwindling yet indispensable commodity, the tug of war between powers will only intensify.

      Today, the US already has strategic bases in several Central Asian countries. Leaders, including the ruthless Uzbekistan dictator, are being supported by the Bush Administration. Russia refuses to relinquish its old relationships with the former Soviet states, and has itself established a military presence in the area. With China s rapid economic growth and development and with an immense population that will demand more and more oil the further it modernizes, it is a safe bet that its interests are well represented in the region as well. European energy conglomerates are also deeply entrenched in the area. All of which leads to the conclusion that one day soon there will be a major conflagration between nations turned rivals. This, folks, is the future the neocons want to impose on us all.

      The example of Central Asia is but the most widely recognized but by no means the only one. Wars for unsustainable resources and for economic, monetary and military supremacy will be fought by our sons and daughters, thanks to our chickenhawk leaders who sit idly and apathetically as the future of those whose caste has forced upon them the destiny of fighting for the interests of the elite is forever vanquished. In wars to come, our zeal to kill will torch us all. Weapons evolve rapidly, becoming more sophisticated and lethal in quick spurts of time as technology advances. Unfortunately, humans do not. Our animal passions remain, taking tens of thousands of years to evolve, and while history s previous wars produced deaths mostly among those actively engaged in battle thanks to the primitiveness of our weaponry, that is no longer the case. Fiery storms of untamed energy can now obliterate the world many times over. The neocon future makes us all dead men walking.

      The new Rome, the new Caesars, the new legions and Praetorian guard, America s future under the neocons will resemble a fascist state run by a corporate oligarch that subverts democracy in favor of military control over our nation. Their actions abroad will give rise to more attacks at home, which will give them the excuse and reason to instill martial law, erasing both the Constitution and our freedoms while imposing terror and destruction onto the world. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be diverted away from education, healthcare and other important social services towards the military industrial complex and the perpetual war for empire. Our sons and daughters will be conscripted through the re-introduction of the draft to defend corporate America s vital interests throughout the world. Dangerously spreading ourselves like a gluttonous army of locusts gorging on all that is blooming, oppressing and exploiting both people and land, karmic hatred will one day return. Proctors will assure allegiance, armies will police the world. The neofascist dream will make easily expendable ants of us all.

      The hijacking of America that began in November 2000 and continued on 9/11 has brought to the forefront of our government a cabal of miscreants, greedmongers, charlatans and fascists that is leading us down into the abominable vortex of self-destruction. We are ignorantly keeping in power an enemy lying in our wake that is commandeering US policy and leading us towards global war and revamped feudalism. Their ideologies are delusional in their grandeur and out of touch with a reality that escapes their arrogant and oligarchical minds. They are zealots, ideologues who see the world through distorted, clouded eyes, without sympathy or understanding for their fellow man, living a frivolous fantasy of deranged self-importance. Years of detachment have made them ignorant to the plight and reality of billions. The danger inherent in the close-knit rogue network is apparent in its actions and policies. Its sinister schemes that we are acquiescing to due to our indifference will come back to haunt us. The terror we help release on the world will boomerang back to our shores. Through our passivity our fate is being sealed. Our cherished freedoms and liberties are slowly evaporating into a mist of nothingness. The blueprint for the end to the American way of life is slowly and meticulously being executed by the enemy within. Therefore, at home is where the war on terror must begin.

      © Copyright 2003 by AxisofLogic.com


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



      Manuel Valenzuela is an attorney, consultant, freelance writer and author of Echoes in the Wind, a novel that will be published in 2004. He lives in Madison, Wisconsin and can be reached at manuel@valenzuelas.net
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.12.03 23:56:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.472 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 00:02:51
      Beitrag Nr. 10.473 ()
      December 15, 2003
      France Moves Toward Forgiving Some of Iraq`s Huge Debt
      By CRAIG S. SMITH

      PARIS, Dec. 15 — Seizing the initiative a day after the announcement of Saddam Hussein`s capture, France said today that it would work with other nations to forgive an unspecified portion of Iraq`s immense foreign debt.

      The offer was a conciliatory gesture to Washington as much as it was a helping hand to Baghdad.

      "France, together with other creditors, believes there could be an agreement in 2004," the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin told reporters after a meeting with members of Iraq`s interim Governing Council. He said that if various conditions regarding Iraq`s sovereignty and stability were met, his country "could then envisage cancellation of debts in line with Iraq`s basic financing capacity."

      Mr. de Villepin`s statements came a day before James A. Baker III, a former United States secretary of state, was scheduled to arrive in Paris to ask the French for help in relieving Iraq of its crushing financial obligations, estimated at more than $120 billion, excluding war reparations owed to Kuwait and Iran. The United States is eager to lift the debt burden, which would otherwise raise the cost of an Iraqi economic recovery beyond Washington`s means.

      Jalal Talabani, a Iraqi Kurdish leader and member of Iraqi delegation visiting Paris, called Mr. de Villepin`s announcement a "gift."

      But by announcing its intention to the Iraqis today, Mr. de Villepin avoided the appearance of answering to Washington`s call.

      "This way he can say, `I`m not doing it because the Americans are asking for it but because I believe it`s the responsible thing to do for the Iraqis,` " said Dominique Moisi, an American expert at the French Institute for International Relations.

      The French foreign minister, one of the diplomatic world`s sharpest critics on Washington`s Iraq policy, seemed eager to strike a conciliatory note in the wake of Mr. Hussein`s capture on Saturday. He brushed aside questions about whether debt forgiveness would be linked to participation in $18.6 billion in American-financed reconstruction contracts in Iraq, saying the two issues were separate and should not be mixed. Washington has excluded France and other past opponents to the war in Iraq from lead roles in such contracts.

      "The arrest of Saddam Hussein constitutes a chance that we all must take advantage of," Mr. de Villepin said. "France is ready to play a full role in these efforts and to follow the action already undertaken on a bilateral basis as Europeans in the humanitarian domain, of course, and in the cooperative domain, whether it be education, health or even archeology."

      He did not, however, offer to send French troops to help secure Iraqi stability, but instead repeated France`s offer — so far ignored by the United States — to build a police school in Iraq.

      France has been slow to extend financial aid to Iraq as long as it remains under American occupation. The country was not among those that pledged billions of dollars for Iraqi reconstruction at a donors` conference in October and until today it had been silent on the question of Iraq`s debt, about $3 billion of which is owed to France.

      Standing together with members of Iraq`s interim Governing Council, including the current holder of its rotating presidency, the Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Mr. de Villepin said that his country would work with the so-called Paris Club, an association of 19 industrialized nations, to negotiate a debt reduction plan for Iraq.

      The club, which includes the United States, France, Germany, Russia and Japan, was formed in 1956 to coordinate the cancellation of debts for financially distressed countries. In 2001, it agreed to forgive two-thirds of Yugoslavia`s debt after President Slobodan Milosevic was driven from power in Serbia. The World Bank has proposed forgiving the same percentage for Iraq.

      Paris Club members collectively hold about $40 billion of Iraq`s outstanding debt. The balance is held mostly by Arab states.

      Japan, which is owed more than $4 billion by Iraq, has not yet indicated whether it would go along with any debt write-off. A senior Japanese envoy, former Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, will meet with President Jacques Chirac of France on Tuesday to discuss the issue.

      Russia, which is owed nearly $3.5 billion, said today that it supported a Paris Club resolution to Iraq`s debt problem. "This is a modern, civilized system for settling the problems of external debt that is applied everywhere, and Russia believes that these mechanisms should be applied to Iraq as well," Russia`s deputy foreign minister, Yuri Fedotov, told the Russian news agency Interfax.

      Germany, which is owed about $2.5 billion, last month said it supported forgiving a portion of Iraq`s debt.

      Mr. Moisi said the French offer might reflect the country`s realization that in the wake of Mr. Hussein`s capture, President Bush appeared to have a stronger chance of winning re-election next year and so Paris would most likely have to deal with his administration for the next five years. "It`s better to set the record straight now," Mr. Moisi said.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 00:08:01
      Beitrag Nr. 10.474 ()

      Jessica Lynch and author Rick Bragg speak during an interview on NBC television`s "Today Show."
      December 14, 2003
      FIRST CHAPTER
      `I Am a Soldier, Too`
      By RICK BRAGG

      he recruiter said she would travel. Now, twenty months after enlistment, nineteen-year-old Private First Class Jessica Lynch steered her groaning diesel truck across a hateful landscape of grating sand and sucking mud, hauling four hundred gallons of water in the rough direction of Baghdad on a mission that just felt bad. Back home, boys with tears in their eyes had offered to marry her, to build her a brand-new house, anything, to get her to stay forever in the high, green lonesome. She told them no, told them she was going to see the world.

      But the recruiter had not told any lies. He offered her a way to make some money for college, so that, when this hitch was over, she could become the kindergarten teacher she wanted to be. And he offered a way to escape the inertia of the West Virginia hills, a place so beautiful that a young person can forget, sometimes until she is very old, that she is standing still. In the process, she would serve her country, something people in her part of America still say without worrying that someone will roll his eyes.

      She bought it. They all had, pretty much: all the soldiers around her, the sons and daughters of endangered blue-collar workers, immigrant families and single mothers-a United States Army borrowed from tract houses, brick ranchers and back roads. The not-quite beneficiaries of trickle-down economics, they had traded uncertain futures for dead-certain paychecks and a place in the adventure that they had heard their ancestors talk of as they`d twisted wrenches, pounded IBM Selectrics and packed lunches for the plants that closed their doors before the next generation could build a life from them.

      The military never closed its doors, and service was passed down like a gold pocket watch. Sometimes it was a good safe bet, all beer gardens and G.I. Bills, and sometimes it was snake eyes, and the soldiers found themselves at a Chosin Reservoir, or a Hue, or on a wrong turn to An Nasiriyah.

      As the convoy of big diesels waddled across the sand, the world she saw was flat, dull and yellow-brown, except where the water had turned the dust to reddish paste. She got excited when she saw a tree. Trees made sense. She had grown up in the woods, where solid walls of hardwood had sunk roots deep into the hillsides and kept the ground pulled tight, as it should be, to the planet. All this empty space and loose, shifting sand unsettled her mind and made her feel lost, long before she found out it was true.

      She was afraid. The big trucks had been breaking down since they left the base in Kuwait, giving in to the grit that ate at the moving parts or bogging down in the mud and sand like wallowing cows. Her convoy, part of the 507th Maintenance Company deployed from Fort Bliss, Texas, was at the tail end of a massive supply line that stretched from the Kuwaiti border through southern Iraq, a caravan loaded with food, fuel, water, spare parts and toilet paper. Her convoy followed the route that had already been rutted or churned up by the columns ahead, and every time a five-ton truck hit a soft place and bottomed out, the thirty-three vehicles in Jessica`s convoy dropped farther behind.

      Jessica just remembers a foreboding, a feeling that the convoy was staggering into enemy country without purpose or direction. Two days into the mission, the convoy had dropped so far behind that it had lost radio contact with the rest of the column. One of the far-ahead convoys carried her boyfriend, Sergeant Ruben Contreras, who had promised he would look after her. The day they left Kuwait, his column had pulled out just ahead of hers-in plain view. Now he had vanished in the distance along with the rest.

      The convoy shrank every day as the heavy trucks just sank into the sand and came apart. In just two days, the thirty-three vehicles in the convoy had dwindled to eighteen, and two of them were being towed by wreckers. One day, it took five hours to lurch just nine miles. To make up that distance and time, the soldiers in the 507th slept little or not at all. They were cooks, clerks and mechanics, none of them tested in combat. They became bone weary and sleepwalked through the days.

      Jessica began to wonder, if her truck broke down, would anyone even notice her at the side of the road? There was a lot to be afraid of here. But that was what she was most afraid of, whether it was reasonable or not. She was afraid of being left behind.

      "I hoped that someone would see me, that someone would pick me up," she said. "Someone would stop. But you didn`t know it. You didn`t know."

      Everyone knew what Saddam`s soldiers did to women captives. In her worst nightmares, she stood alone in that desert as the trucks of her own army pulled away. In her mind, which she struggled to keep clear as the days and nights faded together, she could see the Iraqis rise up out of the sand to come and get her.

      "I didn`t want to be left out there. I didn`t want to be left out there on my own. Even though stuff didn`t look right with the convoy, it was better than being alone."

      It was not a paralyzing fear, nothing that stopped her from doing her duty. It was simple dread.

      Three days into their mission, as she rode with a sergeant, the transfer case in her five-ton truck "just busted"-and they were stranded. As if in her finely tailored nightmare, the big trucks did just grind past. Not all of them had working radios, only orders to push ahead, to make up the lost time. For a few bleak heartbeats, it looked as if her little-girl`s fear was real. Then a Humvee swerved off the road, and the driver beckoned to her. "Get in." It was PFC Lori Ann Piestewa, her best friend. The sergeant hopped in another truck, and they rolled on.

      A Hopi from Arizona who had been Jessica`s roommate at Fort Bliss, Lori was recovering from an injured shoulder and had been given the choice of whether or not to deploy with her unit to Iraq. She went because Jessi did. A twenty-three-year-old mother of two, PFC Piestewa knew that her roommate was nervous, and she did not want her to face the desert, and war, on her own. "She stopped," said Jessica. "She picked me up. I love her."

      * * *

      Far ahead, Sergeant Ruben Contreras sat in his truck as it rolled across the sands, cloaked in the sense of invincibility that a machine gun tends to lend. He was twenty-three, hopelessly in love with a five-foot-three, hundred-pound waif from a little bitty place called Palestine, West Virginia, and sick with worry. He was supposed to eyeball the road, to sweep the horizon for signs of trouble, but his thoughts were tugged back along the ruts his unit had cut in the sand.

      Where was she?

      At least, if everything went according to plan, there was a big, big army between his girlfriend and danger. If everything went according to plan, a shooting fight along the assigned route was unlikely for the supply line soldiers who were purposefully skirting trouble spots, including heavily defended Nasiriyah.

      "If there was any comfort, it was knowing that anything that was gonna harm her was gonna have to come through me first," he said. Rumbling over the sand, the convoys had seemed like an endless train, bound for the same place, bound together.

      Jessi`s convoy would be fine, he tried to convince himself. The only way it could come to real harm would be if it got lost, if the officer in charge wandered off course and into the hornet`s nest of fighters loyal to Saddam who still controlled the cities and towns like Nasiriyah. Such a thing could never happen.

      * * *

      It was not a wrong turn, merely a missed one.

      The little convoy of stragglers rolled into Nasiriyah in the early morning of March 23-right downtown.

      The army, which usually does not use such colorful language in its reports, would later describe what happened next as "a torrent of fire."

      * * *

      When Jessica thinks about it now, she closes her eyes.

      "They were blowing us up."

      The Iraqis fired point-blank into the trucks with rocket-propelled grenades, shattering metal and glass, shredding tires. Soldiers leapt from them and were shot down by Iraqis with

      AK-47 assault rifles who swarmed across rooftops and leaned from windows. A tank rattled up, its cannon tracking toward the trucks that growled and swerved through the dust and smoke, but the convoy was already in ruins. Some U.S. soldiers raced to cover and fought back; others clawed frantically at M16s that had jammed from the grime. Inside the Humvee with Lori, a sergeant and two other soldiers, Jessica watched bullets punch through the windshield, and she lowered her head to her knees, shut her eyes and began to pray.

      * * *

      It was a slow Sunday, winding down from a slow Saturday, in Palestine, West Virginia. Cody, the old dog that had never been quite the same after being shot by a hunter some years before, played dead on the front porch. Inside the white A-frame house that had been built on a foundation of hundred-year-old logs, Deadra and Greg Lynch, Jessi`s parents, watched the television news. In the afternoon, CNN said a maintenance convoy had been ambushed. The network showed a video image of a truck, its doors blown away, blood running down its side. CNN said it was the 507th, and Greg told Dee not to panic, even as something like an icepick gouged at his chest. But people here have sat up late with a lot of wars, and they know that the army usually tells bad news in person. As darkness dropped on the hollow, the only visitors were friends and kin, as word spread as if by magic through the trees that one of their own was in peril.

      About 11:15 p.m., a friend called from the door, "There`s a trooper car comin`."

      A state trooper and another man, in an army uniform, got out of the car and walked up the drive.

      Dee screamed.

      Like her daughter, she just wanted to hide, to make it go away.

      So she just ran, as fast as she could, barefoot on the cold rocks, into the dark.


      Chapter Two
      Princess

      Her bangs were always perfect.

      Radiant in her burgundy form-hugging gown, she was crowned Miss Congeniality at the 2000 Wirt County Fair. Even the steer she raised took a ribbon that year, a good year, her last at Wirt County High. Her sister and brother called her, with only a little meanness, the princess, and she reigned over a mountain landscape that reached all the way from Singing Hills to Reedy Creek. Here, she learned to drive on roads that twisted like a snake on fire, guiding her mom`s Toyota 4x4 pickup through places like Mingo Bottom, Lucille, Blue Goose and Folly Run, past plywood placards that offered molasses for eight dollars a quart and church marquees that promised everlasting life. In time, it all became so familiar that she barely saw it anymore, barely noticed the letters painted on century-old barns and roadside signs that begged passersby to remember rod with love, or chew mail pouch tobacco, or the puzzling pinch yorself-if you feel it, it ain`t jesus. It is the place where she walked a swinging bridge to see her late great-grandpa, where she played popgun soldier in the deep woods with her baby sister and her older brother, who chewed the feet off her Barbie dolls. This is where she broke her arm on the playground slide, and broke David Huber`s second-grade heart, where she crashed into the right field fence after fly balls, dove onto the hardwood gym floor after loose balls, then got up and adjusted her socks.

      Her kin believe she is alive, in part, because she is from this place, because she has the right blood in her. They know that doctors in three countries brought her back from near-death, that soldiers rescued her as her wounds festered, that millions prayed. Still, even though she is small and a little prissy, she carries the blood of the mountains-the blood of people who fought and worked and loved here. Even if it is not a thing that anyone can prove, it makes people glad to believe it. If that is a bad thing, then what are legends for?

      * * *

      Her family has lived here for going on two centuries now, farming the bottomland and raising cattle and horses, or working factory jobs in the small industrial cities that dot the mountains just east of the Ohio River. Like most people here, her people do not see themselves as Southern or Northern, just By God West Virginian-in a state so conflicted during the Civil War that sometimes nothing more than a wooden fence divided sympathies, and brothers really did kill brothers. It is still a land of feuds, where people wait a month, or a lifetime, to settle a grudge over a stolen can of gasoline or a wounded dog.

      The passing decades stitched power lines across the ridges and laid asphalt roads through the bottomland, where the acres are dotted with white farmhouses, fat cows and round hay bales. Every hollow seems to have a little wooden house built snug against walls of rock and trees. But there are still long stretches here where the thin roads seem merely temporary, a playground for the sleek does that bound light as air from ditch to ditch and the arrogant beavers and fat groundhogs that waddle across the blacktop like they own it, then crash off into the weeds with the grace of bowling balls.

      At night, the trees and the up-and-down landscape drape black curtains over the hollows and make the houses seem even more isolated than they are. After supper the men stand on the porches with cups of coffee in their hands and joke about haunts and noises in the dark, and it is easy to imagine that the creak of pine limbs in the wind is really the squeak of saddle leather from some long-dead but restless rebel patrol.

      Here, they never stopped praying in schools, and eleven-year-old boys who feel the call stand up in front of congregations in the white clapboard churches and order them to drop down hard on wall-to-wall carpet and be saved. People still fast here-as sacrifice, as proof of faith-when a friend or relative is sick or in trouble, and women who go to the hospital for surgery come home to find tables crowded with covered dishes and their laundry washed, pressed and stacked. There is no such thing as babysitting, but people offer to "keep your kids." Almost every driveway has a pickup, and every toolshed has a chain saw. Without a chain saw, the ice storms-which come almost every year-would maroon the little houses. Men cut for days at a maze of slick, glittering toppled trees to clear a driveway or a mile of road. Snow they can handle, but they hate the ice.

      (Continues...)






      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Excerpted from I Am a Soldier, Too by Rick Bragg Copyright © 2003 by Rick Bragg . Excerpted by permission.
      All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
      Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 00:21:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.475 ()
      Was da alles an alten Schätzen hochkommt.

      Exclusive: Saddam Was key in early CIA plot

      04/11/03
      UPI: Richard Sale

      See Also:IRAQ-GATE How The United States Illegally Armed Saddam Hussein



      U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.

      United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.

      While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

      In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as "a horrible orgy of bloodshed."

      According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.

      Little attention was paid to Qasim`s bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959, an act that "freaked everybody out" according to a former senior U.S. State Department official.

      Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of "real power," according to this official. The domestic instability of the country prompted CIA Director Allan Dulles to say publicly that Iraq was "the most dangerous spot in the world."

      In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim`s ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument."

      According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim`s office in Iraq`s Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim`s movements.

      Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam`s CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish`s account.

      Darwish said that Saddam`s paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.

      The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim`s driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.

      "It bordered on farce," a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. But Qasim, hiding on the floor of his car, escaped death, and Saddam, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents, several U.S. government officials said.

      Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred by Egyptian intelligence agents to Beirut, according to Darwish and former senior CIA officials. While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam`s apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said.

      One former U.S. government official, who knew Saddam at the time, said that even then Saddam "was known as having no class. He was a thug -- a cutthroat."

      In Cairo, Saddam was installed in an apartment in the upper class neighborhood of Dukki and spent his time playing dominos in the Indiana Café, watched over by CIA and Egyptian intelligence operatives, according to Darwish and former U.S. intelligence officials.

      One former senior U.S. government official said: "In Cairo, I often went to Groppie Café at Emad Eldine Pasha Street, which was very posh, very upper class. Saddam would not have fit in there. The Indiana was your basic dive."

      But during this time Saddam was making frequent visits to the American Embassy where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA station chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence and knew Saddam, former U.S. intelligence officials said.

      Saddam`s U.S. handlers even pushed Saddam to get his Egyptian handlers to raise his monthly allowance, a gesture not appreciated by Egyptian officials since they knew of Saddam`s American connection, according to Darwish. His assertion was confirmed by former U.S. diplomat in Egypt at the time.

      In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed recently that the CIA was behind the coup, which was sanctioned by President John F. Kennedy, but a former very senior CIA official strongly denied this.

      "We were absolutely stunned. We had guys running around asking what the hell had happened," this official said.

      But the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq`s communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.

      Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End.

      A former senior U.S. State Department official told UPI: "We were frankly glad to be rid of them. You ask that they get a fair trial? You have to get kidding. This was serious business."

      A former senior CIA official said: "It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran`s communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed."

      British scholar Con Coughlin, author of "Saddam: King of Terror," quotes Jim Critchfield, then a senior Middle East agency official, as saying the killing of Qasim and the communists was regarded "as a great victory." A former long-time covert U.S. intelligence operative and friend of Critchfield said: "Jim was an old Middle East hand. He wasn`t sorry to see the communists go at all. Hey, we were playing for keeps."

      Saddam, in the meantime, became head of al-Jihaz a-Khas, the secret intelligence apparatus of the Baath Party.

      The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq`s armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group.

      This former official said that he personally had signed off on a document that shared U.S. satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran in an attempt to produce a military stalemate. "When I signed it, I thought I was losing my mind," the former official told UPI.

      A former CIA official said that Saddam had assigned a top team of three senior officers from the Estikhbarat, Iraq`s military intelligence, to meet with the Americans.

      According to Darwish, the CIA and DIA provided military assistance to Saddam`s ferocious February 1988 assault on Iranian positions in the al-Fao peninsula by blinding Iranian radars for three days.

      The Saddam-U.S. intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end at 2 a.m. Aug. 2, 1990, when 100,000 Iraqi troops, backed by 300 tanks, invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. America`s one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy.


      UPI: Richard Sale
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 00:25:57
      Beitrag Nr. 10.476 ()
      Saddam`s wife helped locate him

      December 15, 2003 - 2:32AM

      Well-informed Lebanese sources said today that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein`s second wife supplied the US with "some information" about where her husband was hiding in Iraq.

      Samira Shahbandar, who lives with the ousted Iraqi leader`s only surviving son Ali, "is believed to have given the Americans and their allies some information about the area where Saddam was hiding in," the sources said.

      Saddam was captured based on information from a member of a family "close to him", Major General Raymond Odierno said.

      Odierno, the commander of the 4th Infantry Division that captured Saddam, said that over the last 10 days soldiers had questioned "five to 10 members" of families "close to Saddam".

      "Finally we got the ultimate information from one of these individuals," he said.

      Lebanese security sources failed to confirm whether Samira was living in Beirut under an assumed name with her son, as was reported by the Sunday Times in London.

      The Times report claimed that Samira spoke to her husband on the phone weekly and received letters from him regularly.

      According to the paper, Saddam`s wife told them that her husband gave her $US5 million ($A6.78 million) in cash plus gold and jewellery before sending her with his son Ali to the Syrian border after the US-led invasion of Iraq in March.

      The paper said a representative of the Sunday Times met Samira in La Cottage, a restaurant in the ancient city of Baalbeck in eastern Lebanon. However, sources in Baalbeck told Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA) there was no La Cottage restaurant in the city.

      During a press conference in Baghdad today, the US forces commander in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, ignored a question as to whether the US had received information from Saddam`s second wife, saying only, "We had intelligence information".

      DPA


      This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336830886.html
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 01:31:15
      Beitrag Nr. 10.477 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:12:33
      Beitrag Nr. 10.478 ()
      Let justice be the beacon
      Leader
      Tuesday December 16, 2003
      The Guardian

      The dismaying degree to which established British policy aims have been distorted by the government`s unstinting support for George Bush on Iraq and his "war on terror" is well known. Unfortunately, even though the war has officially ended and Saddam Hussein is a prisoner, these unseemly contortions continue.

      Britain, for example, has rightly abolished the death penalty; so too have all EU members. Britain has consistently lobbied against continued use of capital punishment in the US and other countries. Here is what foreign secretary Jack Straw said last July: "The UK recently reinforced its abolitionist stance by signing Protocol 13 of the European convention on human rights, banning the death penalty in all circumstances, including time of war. We will continue to work tirelessly towards worldwide abolition of the death penalty." Speaking yesterday, however, concerning Saddam`s fate, Mr Straw was less forthright. He remained opposed to the death penalty, he said, but went on: "It is an obvious reality that the death penalty exists and is used by other countries... and that in the end the appropriate level of punishment is a matter for sovereign governments, and then for their courts."

      Yet why is this "abolitionist" government now apparently prepared to countenance the future use of the death penalty in Iraq against Saddam and others? It may also fairly be asked why, having enthusiastically supported the development of a system of international justice through the UN tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the International Criminal Court, it seems content to allow an inexperienced, untested panel of five Iraqi judges, set up under US guidance in Baghdad, to handle what may prove to be the most internationally significant prosecutions since Nuremberg. Mr Straw insists that final decisions have yet to be taken, that the government has only had a few hours in which to con sider how to deal with Saddam. In fact, as one of Iraq`s UN-mandated occupying powers, it has had almost eight months to decide how to handle him. The Americans, at least, have used that time to help create the Iraqi-run war crimes tribunal unveiled last week. Then again, Tony Blair seemed to indicate on Sunday (and again yesterday) that the matter was already decided. Saddam would face trial in Iraq and "the Iraqi people (not international jurists and legal experts on complex issues such as genocide and crimes against humanity) will decide his fate".

      The crux of this matter is that the Bush administration, opposed to international courts in principle, opposed to UN involvement, planning to hand back direct political control in Iraq next summer, hopeful of a quick judicial result and all in favour of the death penalty, wants the Iraqis alone to deal with Saddam, with semi-optional outside advice. This is despite concerns about fairness, expertise, evidence, flaws in the penal code, undue US influence and the transnational nature of his offences. This will not do. The government, when it has finally collected its thoughts, must oppose such a process - or else suffer a further gross distortion of its policy aims at US hands.

      Saddam`s charge-sheet is truly mind-boggling, ranging from mass murder at home to cross-border invasion, spanning over 30 years. Any future trial, if fully and properly conducted, will raise enormous, far-ranging issues. A UN-approved criminal tribunal for Iraq should be created. The best model may be a "mixed" tribunal of national and international jurists sitting in public in Iraq, as in Sierra Leone`s special court. This is not just about making Saddam pay. It is about delivering justice to a whole nation and, indeed, a whole region, in a spirit not of vengeance, but of impeccable, exemplary legality and legitimacy. This must be seen to be done right. The last thing Iraq needs is another corpse - or a martyr.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:15:22
      Beitrag Nr. 10.479 ()
      Now the difficult bit
      After the cheers come the questions. Who will try Saddam for his numerous crimes? And where? Can any Iraqi court give him a fair trial? And should he face the gallows? We asked 15 people with very different perspectives how the fallen Iraqi dictator should be brought to justice

      Tuesday December 16, 2003
      The Guardian

      The international lawyer
      Philippe Sands


      Saddam Hussein can and should be tried for the most serious international crimes, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, and possibly even genocide against certain sectors of the Iraqi population. The question is: before which body? In general terms there are three options. The first is to subject him to a criminal procedure under Iraqi law and before Iraqi judges. This is the "national" option, and has been used with mixed results in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The real problem here may be to find judges of sufficient authority to meet all the necessary standards of independence and impartiality.

      A second possibility would be to establish an "internationalised" procedure under Iraqi law, involving a mixed criminal court of Iraqi judges and judges of other nationalities, and applying Iraqi law and international law. This was the chosen option for Kosovo and East Timor, and is also proposed for Cambodia. It relies on the national legal system but gives it an added backbone by introducing a strong international element, including financial support.

      A third option would be to bring Saddam before a fully-fledged international court, involving international judges and international law. This is the Nuremberg option, and it could be located in Iraq or elsewhere. The International Criminal Court is not an option, since Iraq is not a party and because it only has jurisdiction for international crimes committed after July 1 2002. That means creating a dedicated international court, as has happened for Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone.

      In assessing the various options a number of factors will have to be considered. Criminal proceedings must be seen to be legitimate, not least in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Any international element will therefore have to involve a majority of judges from the region, and any Iraqi judges will need to be independent of events in Iraq over the past 30 years. Cost will be another factor: the international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been costly, and in the eyes of many, far too slow. The possibility of the death penalty will also be an issue, and would not be on the agenda for an international court.

      All this points to a court based in Iraq, with an international component amongst the judges, and applying minimum international standards of due process. But if any proceedings are to be legitimate, the choice must ultimately rest with the people of Iraq and the government that will emerge after next June. Justice dispensed by the occupying powers alone will always be tainted by questions of legitimacy, as Nuremberg has shown.

      · Philippe Sands QC is a specialist in international law and professor of law at University College London.

      The Nuremberg veteran
      Gitta Sereny


      I am in no doubt that the trial must take place in Iraq. In 1946-47, I attended the Nuremberg trials for several days, and I think many people have forgotten that this groundbreaking trial was broadcast in its entirety. This had an enormous effect in Germany - some of it negative, but most of it positive. It was on in schools for much of the day, and most of the Germans I met listened to it for part of the day, or in the evening. The whole country was involved. For me, this is absolutely point number one for Iraq.

      Something that needs to be considered are the political problems that will arise in Iraq when such a trial takes place, for we are talking about a country that, while highly educated, is also very politically divided. The presence of Saddam in an Iraqi court is going to cause enormous problems: endless and, I imagine, violent debates in public and private, demonstrations and fights in the streets.

      Security will therefore be a major concern. Postwar Nuremberg was an occupied city, exactly as is Baghdad now. You cannot imagine the security in Nuremberg during the trial; it became a police city. This time, though, the recent history of security in Iraq does not bode well. Who will do the policing? It shouldn`t be the Americans, and the Iraqi police do not yet have the skills. God knows whether this can be done, but perhaps it might be acceptable to the Iraqis to bring in UN troops to secure the place instead?

      For this trial to be carried out correctly, furthermore, it has to be done on a different basis than the Iraqis have ever known. How does the judiciary learn, in the comparatively short time available, how to carry out such a trial, which, if it is properly conducted, will take many months, for it will have to cover the whole of Iraqi history over the past 30 years? The Iraqi judiciary will need instruction, but will the occupying Americans be open to this instruction coming from international lawyers? Would the Iraqis accept judicial assistance, before and during the trial, from The Hague? It is also absolutely necessary that Saddam is well defended. But Iraqi lawyers are totally inexperienced at defending a man accused of the things he will be accused of. Perhaps his counsel should have a sidekick from a neutral nation, such as Sweden.

      Nuremberg was a trial by the victors - how could it have been anything else? - and in order to avoid this, it is very important that it does not become an American trial. But even so, how can there not be a sense of revenge against Saddam in a country where he had, at the very least, tens of thousands killed? For the so-called NS (Nazi) Trials in Germany, hundreds of which were held as a continuation of Nuremberg, the decision was taken that nobody could be sentenced to death who had not killed with his own hands. The result was that countless men who, in the mood of that time, should and would have hanged were in fact saved, and five years later, were freed under an ill-considered Allied amnesty. This cannot be allowed to happen with Saddam, who, if an additional justification for severest punishment is needed, is in fact known to have killed with his own hands.

      · Gitta Sereny attended the Nuremberg trials and wrote a book about Albert Speer.

      The ex-minister
      Michael Portillo


      The key decision about how to treat Saddam was taken before his arrest, namely that he should be tried by the Iraqi authorities. That was apparently inconsistent with the decision to send Slobodan Milosevic and other indicted war criminals from the former Yugoslavia to an international court in The Hague for trial. Arguably there is a stronger case for sending Saddam to an international court than there was for sending Milosevic, given Saddam`s aggression against neighbouring states, and his supposed defiance of UN security council resolutions relating to weapons of mass destruction. The inconsistency does not make the decision to try Saddam in Iraq wrong. It merely illustrates that case law in this area is still evolving, that at this stage political considerations play a big part in each decision, and that for as long as we go on picking and choosing how and where those whom we defeat will face justice, it will be hard to convince a sceptical world audience that we are being even-handed.

      Saddam will be tried in Iraq because that looks like good politics. The decision is meant to imply that Iraq now controls its own destiny, and that what matters most to the international community is not the threat that Saddam posed to international security, but rather his crimes against Iraqis. That helps with the emerging spin which suggests that we really went to war because he was a beastly tyrant, even if we clearly remember that Blair`s case was founded firmly on the WMD issue. Cynicism apart, it is indeed good politics.

      Just because Saddam will be tried by an Iraqi court is not a good reason for holding him in Iraq now. His arrest will convince many Iraqis that his dreadful regime will not return and that further struggle on his behalf is pointless. But not all. Others may yet imagine the possibility of a heroic rescue or breakout from his prison. The fact that he still breathes and is still on Iraqi soil may help convince some that the battle against the US is worth prolonging. Saddam should therefore be removed from Iraq, and be placed in international, but not American, custody. The Hague might be the right place for him. During this period of political transition in Iraq, it is helpful to emphasise that the Iraqi investigators will be operating according to internationally recognised norms. When the case against Saddam is ready (which may not be for a long time), he could be returned to Iraq for trial, or an Iraqi court could be established outside the country.

      I would not count on Saddam to tell us too much about weapons programmes and the like. I would be amazed if he knew useful details on locations and quantities, any more than President Bush could tell you precise data on the US nuclear deterrent. More likely is that Iraqis who worked at the WMD rockface and who know more than they have been telling, will now conclude that they have less reason to hold their tongues than before Saddam`s incarceration.

      · Michael Portillo is a former defence secretary.

      The historian
      Ian Kershaw


      What matters above all is that justice should be seen to be done - first, by the Iraqis themselves, and second, by their fellow Arabs and the wider Islamic community. The politics of ensuring that this is achieved are crucial.

      History offers few guidelines. The Nuremberg trials at the end of the second world war are not a helpful precedent. One obvious difference is that Hitler himself was not on trial. Unlike Saddam, he feared capture more than a bullet in the head. Beyond that, the circumstances were quite different from those of today`s Iraq. The vast proportion of Hitler`s victims were non-Germans. So an international tribunal had a certain obvious legitimacy, just like the war that had united the allies against nazism. And there was no continued guerrilla-style fighting against the allied occupiers, as had been feared. Defeat and occupation, in other words, were largely accepted.

      In Iraq, however profound the detestation for Saddam in much - though not all - of the population, the feeling is evidently still widespread that the "liberators" are "occupiers", and should leave the country without delay. The war itself was seen to lack legitimacy, and not just by the Iraqis, so a form of justice that is seen as being that of the victorious coalition would be politically disastrous.

      Moreover, while not forgetting the victims of the terrible war against Iran, and the smaller numbers during the first Gulf war, the vast proportion of those who suffered under Saddam were Iraqis. For me all this points to the conclusion that the Iraqis should themselves conduct a trial of Saddam. All possible safeguards about due process should naturally be taken. And it would be best if an agreement could be reached, preferably via the UN, for some of the presiding judges to come from other Arab countries. But failing such an agreement, the trial should be left to the Iraqis. It might prove the cathartic agent they need.

      It could be that Saddam won`t even make it to the trial - like more than one defendant at Nuremberg. If he does, he might have things to say which make embarrassing listening for the British and Americans. Should he then be condemned to death, many in the west (though not in Iraq) will face another moral dilemma. I won`t lose any sleep over it myself. I`m against the death penalty, but if ever there was a candidate for it...

      · Ian Kershaw is a historian and biographer of Hitler.

      The neocon
      Thomas Donnelly


      The most important trials will be the ones conducted to redress the crimes Saddam committed against the Iraqis themselves. That is key for Iraqi society, and because there are a lot of people in Iraq who need to be reminded - and some who didn`t know - the scope of how awful Saddam was. Just as the Nuremberg trials were clearly important for the social and political reconstruction of Germany, it is fair to expect that confronting Saddam`s past - his legacy - will be important in helping to create a solid basis for a durable democracy in Iraq.

      Whether it is an Iraqi process or a process with coalition input seems to me to be a secondary issue. You have to have a process that is impartial and legally above reproach, and ideally it would be an Iraqi-only process, but it could be some sort of hybrid - Iraqis up front and in the lead, being coached or assisted by coalition figures. As for international involvement, there are a whole host of people and nations who have legitimate claims against Saddam, but the reluctance of international jurists to apply the death penalty is a potential time bomb. My sense of what is just contemplates that there are some crimes that are so awful that the death penalty is appropriate - and, hey, I don`t want to make any wild claims here, but I would just venture that Saddam might fit that definition, and I bet that a lot of Iraqis would agree with me. To thwart the Iraqi sense of justice in order to preserve the niceties of western European justice seems a bit perverse to me.

      The trial is bound to be a show - but a show that is much more likely to have salutary effects, on balance. Reckoning with Saddam - with the nature of his regime, and with the rather unfortunate nature of many regimes in the region - is only a good thing. It will be very interesting to see how a Saddam trial plays out in the court of public opinion in Europe, too. And there are probably going to be embarrassing moments for the American government, and for western European governments as well - we tolerated this guy for far too long. But so be it. Admission of past error is the basis of future wisdom.

      · Thomas Donnelly is a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and founder member of the neocon Project for the New American Century.

      The Eichmann prosecutor
      Zvi Terlo


      I think that Saddam should be tried in Iraq under Iraqi law. There is a good case against Saddam for genocide against the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south. The wars he fought against the foreign countries this year and in 1991 were acts of state. He could be tried for these things if they contravened international law. But why look for these exotic crimes when there are enough crimes in Iraq to fill a library? There is no need for international law when someone gases and tortures his own people.

      It is a matter of principle. I take the same position as I did during the Eichmann trial: this is a national matter, not an international one.

      The situation was different with the Eichmann trial. We tried him in the Jewish state for crimes committed when the Jewish state did not exist. We saw the Jewish state as the representative of the Jewish people and therefore had the right to put him on trial. With Saddam there are no such difficulties, there is no problem with Iraqi jurisdiction. He committed his crimes against the Iraqi people and the Iraqi state existed then and exists now.

      · Zvi Terlo was the Israeli deputy state lawyer in the case against Adolf Eichmann.

      The Iraqi journalist·
      Mustafa Alrawi


      Only once an elected, legitimate and representative Iraqi government is in place can Saddam Hussein be fairly tried for the crimes of which he has been accused.

      Although he does not deserve fairness, the Iraqi people do. If a court backed and created by the current or similar interim body, such as the Iraqi governing council`s (GC) new war crimes court, were to try Saddam then the victims of his regime will not receive justice.

      It is also important not to allow Saddam an opportunity to question the authority of his judge and jury. The GC does not represent the people who so much want Saddam to answer for the past three decades. And ultimately, the people also wish to understand the nature of their role in the recent history of their country.

      Saddam must be tried in full accordance with Iraqi law, and he should be subject to the death penalty. Only once he has been hanged or jailed, convicted by the will of the Iraqi people, can Iraq move on towards a real future.

      Right now, while the political situation remains stagnant and impotent, neither Saddam nor Iraq and America`s enemies, such as the despotic rulers in the region, will recognise that Saddam truly was a villain.

      There is still time for him to be crowned a hero by the Arab street and he will be gunning for that. He will use every opportunity and trick in the book to claim that his trial is a sham and that he in fact is the victim. Already I have heard many non-Iraqi Arabs lament his capture. This attitude illustrates everything that is wrong with the region. And this is the best opportunity to show the folly in what is fundamentally a futile anti-Americanism.

      The myth of Saddam must be totally stripped naked by his own people; only then will other Arabs realise that they too must take a similarly introspective look at their own loyalties and behaviour. More importantly such a process will empower a population that for so long lived in fear of the regime.

      · Mustafa Alrawi is managing editor of Iraq Today.

      The Kurdish politician
      Barham Salih


      I would like to see Saddam tried in Halabja. Justice is not an abstract idea but one that has moral and political implications. Halabja was the scene of the most gruesome crime, where 5,000 innocent people were gassed on March 16 1988, and it would be enormously symbolic to try him there. It would help Iraq to confront its miserable past and provide healing for the friends and relatives of the victims of Saddam. It would be the right signal to send - that no one is immune from justice and that no ruler can contemplate genocide.

      It is an opportunity to show that we are fundamentally different from Saddam`s regime in the sense that he never gave us any justice. Let us begin by showing him justice - that will be the most powerful statement we can make. I am personally opposed to the death penalty, and I am proud to say that my government has not implemented any death sentences. It would be ironic but powerful to repeal the death penalty in order to start treating him differently from the way that he treated us.

      · Barham Salih is prime minister of the Kurdistan regional government.


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:17:52
      Beitrag Nr. 10.480 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:20:25
      Beitrag Nr. 10.481 ()
      Saddam`s arrest is a mixed blessing for his captors
      Enemy leaders who are dead as well as overthrown are a lot less trouble

      Martin Kettle
      Tuesday December 16, 2003
      The Guardian

      Under a different kind of empire in an earlier age, there is little doubt what would have happened. The captured Saddam would have been paraded in chains past cheering crowds along Pennsylvania Avenue to bow the knee to the conquering president. The whole thing would have been straight out of Aida or Tamburlaine the Great. Even today, there seems to be a significant minority of US opinion that would probably get off quite happily on such a celebration of raw American power.

      An empire based on laws and freedom, though, cannot go there. But that does not mean that the question of what to do with Saddam has an easy answer. Riding in triumph is not the only option placed off limits by political considerations. Even if he wanted to, George Bush cannot display the pragmatic magnanimity to Saddam that Grant and Lincoln offered to Lee and Davis after Appomattox. Nor can he look the other way and replicate the ad hoc national self-interest that MacArthur applied to Hirohito in 1945.

      The treatment of captive rulers is never easy. This has always been an issue that can divide allies who otherwise agree about almost everything else. As London exploded into victory celebrations after the signing of the Armistice on November 11 1918, David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill sat down to dinner in 10 Downing Street to discuss the aftermath of war. The talk centred on what they should do about the Kaiser. Churchill counselled caution. Lloyd George was for shooting him as soon as possible. The Kaiser abdicated but survived.

      Today, we inhabit the post-Nuremberg tribunal age, buttressed by the spread of international and human rights law, and spiced by the revival of moral interventionism. Yet even so, Tony Blair and his advisers are no clearer about Saddam`s fate than his predecessors were about the Kaiser`s. As US troops powered towards Baghdad this spring, Blair was asked whether his preference was for Saddam to be taken dead or alive. Not sure, replied Blair, what do you think? There was no agreement, but nothing was ruled out. Eight months later, it is unlikely that they had resolved the issue before the news came through from Tikrit.

      The only reliable rule is that enemy leaders who are dead as well as overthrown are generally a lot less trouble than the living to those who have ousted them. The corpses of Hitler, Mussolini, Allende and Ceausescu all prove the point, in their different ways. With the living, on the other hand, politics will always loom as large as power. The dispute about the Kaiser was not a one-off. Remember Charles I after his capture in 1647, or the problems that Napoleon repeatedly caused his opponents in defeat. Or the difficulties that the overthrown Tsar presented to the Bolsheviks.

      These issues are never either pleasant or simple. Even after thousands of years there are no absolute rules. The Bush administration has held hundreds of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for two years while utterly ignoring international law and opinion. Yesterday, on the other hand, Bush was quick to promise Saddam a trial that would stand international scrutiny. A new approach? Or merely the different exigencies of a changed time? The latter is more credible. Treason, the wily Talleyrand observed, is all a matter of dates. He could have added that often in war and politics it is not what happens that does most to shape events, but also when it happens and how.

      The capture of Saddam Hussein is a classic case in point. The tyrant`s detention is an unreservedly welcome event. It removes the threat of a restoration that, however distant, had to be obliterated if Iraqi freedom is ever to mean anything. It heralds the possibility of a form of closure for the generations of Iraqis who suffered at the hands of his regime. It takes the occupation of Iraq over a significant watershed that had to be crossed if a credible transfer of authority is to be carried through. It makes the talk of a new Iraq based on freedom and democracy seem more plausible, if still some way off. Yet these are all big picture conclusions. They do not offer any guidance on the more immediate question of what should be done with Saddam. The former Iraqi leader has been in American hands for barely 72 hours. Yet already some extremely awkward consequential issues begin to loom larger than they might have done had he simply been captured and executed in the heat of the invasion.

      I s Saddam to be tried by the international community, whatever exactly that means in this context, or by Iraqis? In either eventuality, under what code and jurisdiction would such a trial take place? What punishment - and what rights of appeal - await him if and when he is convicted? Donald Rumsfeld says Saddam is to be treated as a prisoner of war; but prisoners of war are entitled to significant rights, including the right not to be demeaned in public and the right not to answer detailed questions.

      If the dictator had been run to earth in April, in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion, how different it might have been. Rough justice would have been easier to carry out and might have had potent effects. The invasion would have been more conclusive, probably more tolerable and perhaps even more popular for longer among liberated Iraqis. Sustained resistance would have been harder, and the defects of the Pentagon`s post-invasion planning less cruelly exposed. Conceivably there might even have been some closure on weapons of mass destruction, while a significant number of people from many lands who have since perished might still be alive today, not least Dr David Kelly.

      Saddam`s arrest, in other words, is both a great event and, because of its timing, a mixed blessing. Its consequences are not what they would have been in April and are now by no means predictable or easy. One thing that is certain is that it does not vindicate ex post facto the British invasion of Iraq, since the government justified the invasion on the basis of the need to defend ourselves from the threat of attack by weapons of mass destruction, not on the basis that it was desirable to overthrow Saddam.

      It is hardly surprising that the government is cock-a-hoop about the arrest. In Whitehall, there is a mood of celebration that is all the stronger for having been so long denied. Jack Straw seemed almost lighthearted at his press conference yesterday morning, almost giving the game away.

      The government therefore feels a great weight off its shoulders. All this is only human. Yet it does not follow that things will now change for the better in Iraq, where there were serious car bomb attacks again yesterday. And it does not follow either that the domestic political clouds still hanging over Blair will lift quickly, or even at all, merely because Saddam is at last behind bars.

      · martin.kettle@guardian.co.uk


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:22:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.482 ()
      Iraq`s former exiles need this trial
      The US won`t want to alienate its allies, so the Iraqis will try Saddam

      Glen Rangwala
      Tuesday December 16, 2003
      The Guardian

      The capture, trial and punishment of Iraq`s former leaders have been at the forefront of the demands of Iraq`s new political elite. For the members of the US-appointed Iraqi governing council, dominated by political factions that matured in exile, the talk since April has been not about the ancien regime`s weapons of mass destruction or its putative links with al-Qaida, and it has only intermittently dealt with improving social welfare, the development of infrastructure or the restoration of Iraqi self-rule. For the past eight months, the major theme has been the importance of exacting a suitable form of revenge on the leaders who tyrannised the country for 35 years.

      For the returning exiles, prevented from travelling back to their homeland for decades, the prospect of a trial has been their key opportunity for exacting a small part of the price the former president deserves to pay. When the London-based Iraqi Jurists` Association produced a blueprint for the US state department earlier this year on the justice arrangements for the transitional period, the first half of the report was on the mechanisms that should be established inside Iraq to prosecute past leaders.

      The spirit of righteous revenge is based upon the triumph of the victim: the avenging agency must be the wronged party. International human rights groups, aware of the real limitations in the experience of the Iraqi judiciary, call for international judges to have a role in the trial. This mistakes the political purpose of the trials that will sustain the Iraqi political system for the coming months. Anything other than an Iraqi trial will significantly diminish its political effectiveness inside the country, even if there is a substantial cost in international legitimacy. As Khalid al-Kishtainy, the famous Iraqi satirist, put it to me yesterday: "Nothing can scratch your skin as nicely as your own nails."

      An Iraqi special tribunal is already in place, created by the Iraqi governing council three days before Saddam`s capture. Large parts of its statute are taken directly from that of the International Criminal Court (although, curiously, it omits the ICC statute`s bar on prosecuting crimes committed by minors as well as the ICC`s rejection of the death penalty), but it has only a minimal role for international advisers and observers. Unless the coalition wishes to alienate its closest allies inside Iraq by rendering one of their few creations irrelevant, this will be the venue at which the trial of Saddam Hussein takes place. This is the governing council`s opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to other Iraqis, to show that its officials have the ability to handle affairs of heightened international significance in line with Iraqi aspirations.

      This feature of the trial could have lasting effects upon the structure of Iraqi politics. At present, the former exiles - with only a small number of exceptions - have little political credibility inside Iraq, and a minimal popular political base. The fastest growing parties on the Baghdad university campus are not Ahmad Chalabi`s neocon-backed Iraqi National Congress or the Iranian-backed Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, but the Iraq Islamist party, led by Sunni Islamists who stayed inside Iraq, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which has governed part of the north of the country throughout the past decade.

      This is a chance for returning exiles to link themselves to Iraqi society, which would be squarely in line with the interests of the coalition. It would also help them to dispose of their image - widespread among Iraqis - as individuals who lived it up in the west whilst those left behind suffered under Saddam and sanctions. The trial of Saddam will be used to reinforce the image of a nation that suffered - and avenged - as a whole. For better or worse, this is the classic stuff of nation-building. Iraqi public attention is turned not on present grievances or privations, which remain real and seemingly insurmountable under the ineffectual American governance, or on future uncertainties; instead, it is focused entirely on the past.

      The trial of Saddam will not conform to internationally recognised standards of legitimacy, and may well result in the execution of the former president. It may not even end up playing well for the Blair and Bush administrations: pictures of Saddam shaking hands with a smiling Donald Rumsfeld will be given pride of place by the defence, as will stories of how the US and UK aided Saddam`s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes up until 1990; while outside the courtroom guerrilla insurgency and the absence of weapons of mass destruction will continue to haunt them. But the priorities of Iraqis, particularly those whom the coalition has set up to be the new national leaders, will most probably be too strong for the US to override.

      · Glen Rangwala is a lecturer in Middle Eastern politics at Newnham College, Cambridge


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:24:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.483 ()
      Bush is still in a real hole
      The US president is facing a financial nightmare of his own making, and needs all the good news he can get

      Albert Scardino
      Tuesday December 16, 2003
      The Guardian

      The Bush administration must take care not to spend High Value Target Number One all at once by letting a mob hang him this week. The president was too quick to declare Mission Accomplished on that aircraft carrier last spring; now he can say it`s in the bag after all.

      But Saddam is only one of the administration`s aeroplanes, and the only one so far brought back to the carrier deck. There is still an entire squadron of foreign, domestic and economic policies lost in the clouds. If they don`t come home safely, the Republicans might need a bit of Saddam to divert attention during the presidential campaign next autumn. Then they can hang him.

      To hear the Republican image makers, the arrest of Saddam makes Bush`s re-election next November inevitable. The discovery in the rat hole may indeed undermine the campaign of Howard Dean, who built his credibility and momentum on his early opposition to the war. But there are several other credible Democrats in the race. And there is plenty of time before the real campaign begins in September for the opposition to coalesce around a different candidate.

      Meanwhile, of the issues left unresolved, the economy is the most threatening to Bush`s popularity. A soaring stock market and an anaemic recovery in employment have alleviated the fear prevalent in the country (and the White House) this autumn. But there is no escape from deficits in the government budget and in trade. Bush is mother of one and midwife to the other. Together they could pull the US into the same financial hole that made Britain an IMF client 27 years ago - and before next year`s election.

      The dollar has already lost a third of its value against the euro. The decline could accelerate as the world loses confidence in the ability of the US to repay its massive and increasing debts. As a result, the dollars being paid to oil suppliers and to Chinese manufacturers are also declining in value. Might China revalue its currency? Could the oil industry shift to a euro-based pricing system? Either could send American inflation soaring, driving up interest rates. The bond and stock markets would crash. So would house prices and consumer spending.

      Bush has engaged in a campaign of voter bribery in the past two years unrivalled in US history. The tax cuts came first, a gift to corporate and upper-income America that will hobble the country for a generation or more. And there were breathtaking increases in farm subsidies to buy loyalty in the heartland.

      Illegal tariffs in 2002 on steel imports bought support from coal miners, railway workers and steel unions in the critical states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. Proposals last month for duties on Chinese textiles were intended to purchase the loyalty of low-wage workers in Georgia and the Carolinas - even if they offended a nation emerging as one of America`s biggest bankers.

      The tax cuts have created runaway deficits. The farm subsidies contributed to the collapse of the Cancun trade talks. Bush had to abandon the steel tariffs last week in the face of threats of counter-measures from the EU.

      If the economic plane loses altitude quickly before November, there will be no place to land. Remember when the pound nearly reached $1 in 1984? It could soar to $2.50 in six months. Remember when UK interest rates touched 15% in 1993? US rates could shoot up by the election if the central bank has to rush to defend the dollar, as the Bank of England did for the pound before Britain exited the exchange rate mechanism.

      The capture of Saddam might affect the prospects of the various Democrats more than it will Bush. Before the weekend, Dean`s anti-war campaign seemed ready to steamroller the nominating process. With only six weeks to go before the voting, he stood poised to come first in two early states, Iowa and New Hampshire.

      But with a commitment to bringing the troops home by June, an anti-war campaign may seem a weak platform. And a proportional voting system that will leave the winner with only a handful of the delegates needed to win the nomination at the party convention in July means that, as a group, Dean`s opponents will collect more votes.

      When it comes to the southern states in early February, Dean faces more serious problems. More than a third of southern Democratic primary voters are black. Dean saw them off when he said he wanted to be the candidate of the boys with a confederate flag emblem on their pick-up trucks.

      He is no more tutored in national and international economics than in southern racial politics. A gaffe or two here could help reignite the campaign of Richard Gephardt, the candidate with the broadest experience of public life, or John Kerry, an astute Washington insider.

      Bush campaigners were already at work over the weekend trying to imply that Saddam`s arrest makes Bush a shoo-in, a line they promoted in the Florida recounts three years ago. This time, their biggest opponent may be the bond markets, not the Democrats. The odds look a long way short of a sure thing.

      albert.scardino@guardian.co.uk


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:27:03
      Beitrag Nr. 10.484 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:34:49
      Beitrag Nr. 10.485 ()
      Meanwhile, in Baghdad, the slaughter goes on
      By Andrew Buncombe
      16 December 2003


      Many had hoped the capture of Saddam Hussein would put an end to the insurgency that has been carrying out deadly attacks against US troops and Iraqi targets. Yesterday any such wishfulness was swiftly crushed when suicide bombers killed eight Iraqi policemen and injured at least 30 civilians in two suicide bomb attacks in Baghdad.

      In what may well be a clear indication that the resistance to US occupation will continue despite the capture of the former Iraqi leader, two car bombs were detonated outside Iraqi police stations in different parts of the city.

      US troops killed 11 attackers after coming under attack in Samarra, north of Baghdad, a military statement said and in Saddam`s home town of Tikrit, a roadside bomb injured three soldiers.

      Gunmen ambushed an American patrol in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, a statement said. The attackers used automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades but caused neither casualties nor damage to the patrol which called in reinforcements, the statement said.

      US forces also met civil resistance on the streets. The military announced that soldiers in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, killed three protesters and wounded two more, after up to 750 people rallied in a show of support for Saddam.

      The statement said that US troops were fired upon repeatedly and that one soldier was wounded.

      Pro-Saddam demonstrations have been held in several Iraqi towns, casting doubts on claims by the US-led coalition that the people of Iraq universally welcomed his arrest.

      In Tikrit, 10 miles from Saddam was captured, about 700 people rallied in the town centre chanting "Saddam is in our hearts, Saddam is in our blood." US soldiers and Iraqi policemen yelled back: "Saddam is in our jail."

      On the northern outskirts of the Iraqi capital, a suicide bomber driving a four-wheel-drive taxi killed eight policemen at their station in Husainiyah. The commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Ali Amer, told reporters that 10 officers were injured. Residents said at least five civilians, including a five-year-old girl, were wounded by flying glass and debris.

      "We were in a state of shock," said Salem Eid Ali, who lives across the street from the station and who was injured by flying glass, along with his wife and two children. "We were having breakfast and each of us was thrown by the power of the blast. We had to carry my family from above the back wall of the house in order to take them to hospital."

      Colonel Hamad Ghazban, another Iraqi officer, said of the attackers: "These are al-Qa`ida people. Saddam does not have the power to do these kinds of things. His ability is too weak. Last night we saw him in a hole."

      Just hours before, in the Ameriyah neighbourhood of the city, eight policemen were injured when a suicide bomber detonated his vehicle packed with explosives at about 8am. The attack would have been much worse had Iraqi police and US Military Police not fired at a second explosives-laden vehicle that was following the first car. That intervention prevented the second vehicle from ramming into the station, and the driver fled the scene without detonating his device. He was later captured.

      Brigadier General Mark Hertling of the US Army said: "Right now, we don`t know what the target was. It goes with the intelligence we had yesterday, that there would be several [car bombs]. We dodged a couple of bullets in Baghdad."

      Yesterday`s attacks appear to undermine the views of those who said that Saddam and his so-called "Baathist hold-outs" have been behind the wave of attacks against US targets. Even President George Bush predicted yesterday that there would be continuing violence. "The terrorists in Iraq remain dangerous. The work of our coalition remains difficult and will require further sacrifice," he said at a press conference in Washington.

      Meanwhile in Baghdad police fired into the air to disperse hundreds of people chanting: "We want Saddam back."

      The attacks in Husainiyah and Ameriyah follow a similar car bomb attack on Sunday in which 17 people were killed in Khalidiyah, about 60 miles west of Baghdad, just 12 hours after the former Iraqi leader was taken into US custody.
      16 December 2003 10:33



      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:36:43
      Beitrag Nr. 10.486 ()
      Democrats step up attack on Bush`s war policy despite seizure of dictator
      By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles and Rupert Cornwell in Washington
      16 December 2003


      Despite the huge policy bonus handed to President Bush by the capture of Saddam Hussein, his most likely Democratic challenger for the Presidency kept up his criticism of the Iraq war yesterday, arguing that the seizure of the former dictator "has not made America safer".

      In a keynote foreign policy speech in Los Angeles, Howard Dean insisted that his hostility to the war has not changed. The Bush administration had launched the conflict "in the wrong way at the wrong time".

      Its massive cost - $166bn (£95bn) and counting - might have been less if more foreign countries had been persuaded to take part.

      Instead, the former Vermont Governor told the Pacific Council on International Policy, the latest events in Iraq represented "a new opportunity to move ahead, not a guarantee".

      "The capture of Saddam does not end our difficulties," Mr Dean said, as he underlined the "continuing challenge, and the continuing need, to repair our alliances and regain global support for American goals." He said Mr Bush had not explained how Saddam`s capture would lead to greater security, nor how it would halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

      Mr Dean`s forthright criticism of the Iraq war, even before the invasion was launched, has fuelled his remarkable surge to the head of the Democratic field, although it also reflects his readiness to take on a President regarded by activist Democrats with little short of loathing. That feeling is unlikely to have changed, even after the seizure of the deposed dictator, with all its symbolic closing of an era in the Middle East.

      But the development could yet throw a big spanner into the battle for the Democratic nomination. Major and sustained US successes in rebuilding Iraq may blunt what will be one of his most powerful arguments, were the former Vermont governor to win the nomination to challenge Mr Bush in 2004.

      Just possibly, some analysts believe, Mr Dean`s appeal might also be dented in the primaries, which get under way with contests in Iowa and New Hampshire next month. The beneficiaries, they argue, would be candidates who supported the war.

      As news of the former Iraqi leader`s capture spread, Joe Lieberman, running mate of Al Gore in 2000 and the most hawkish Democrat in the field, lashed out at Mr Dean. "If Howard Dean had had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place," said the Connecticut senator.

      Until the galvanising shock of Mr Gore`s endorsement of Mr Dean last week, the Lieberman campaign had been languishing. His aides claim that that "betrayal" and the vindication provided by Saddam Hussein`s capture will persuade Democratic primary voters to take a second look at their man.

      Though he avoided praise for Mr Bush yesterday, Mr Dean was forced to utter some rare kind words for the President on Sunday, immediately after the stunning news arrived from Iraq. "This is a great day of pride in the American military, a great day for the Iraqi people ... I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration," he said.

      But Dean aides insisted that the thrust of the major foreign policy speech he was giving in California yesterday had not been changed by the dramatic events in Iraq. "The issue wasn`t capturing Saddam," said Ivo Daalder, a former senior official on the Clinton National Security Council and a foreign policy adviser to Mr Dean. "The issue is whether this was the right war at the right time, and that critique still stands."

      Mr Daalder is one of several former Clinton foreign policy specialists enlisted by the Dean campaign to make up for their man`s perceived lack of international experience. Mr Dean was introduced yesterday by Warren Christopher, the former Secretary of State, and is also being advised by Anthony Lake, a former National Security Adviser for Mr Clinton.

      Privately, though, every Democratic candidate admits that, barring a real upsurge in American casualties in Iraq, the capture of Saddam Hussein is a real boost for the White House, providing stronger justification for the launch of the war and enabling Mr Bush to rebut suggestions that, with Saddam still at large, the United States was sinking into a Vietnam-like morass.

      A USA Today poll carried out immediately after news broke of Saddam`s capture showed opposition among Americans to the war had dropped to the lowest level since the fall of Baghdad in early April.

      In a separate Washington Post/ABC poll, Mr Bush`s handling of the war was praised by 58 per cent, up from 48 per cent in November. Even so, nine out 10 of those surveyed said the US still faced "big challenges" in Iraq, and one in three thought that the capture of Saddam would make little difference to the parlous security situation in the country.
      16 December 2003 10:35


      © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:38:22
      Beitrag Nr. 10.487 ()
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:47:04
      Beitrag Nr. 10.488 ()

      American soldiers held Iraqis yesterday in a pen in Tikrit, Saddam Hussein`s hometown, after some 300 people demonstrated to protest his arrest.
      December 16, 2003
      THE CAPTIVE
      Hussein Tells Interrogators He Didn`t Direct Insurgency
      By THOM SHANKER and JAMES RISEN

      WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 — Saddam Hussein has denied playing any direct role in commanding Iraqi insurgents or in planning attacks after he went into hiding, and he said his government possessed no prohibited weapons, United States government officials said Monday.

      Interrogators began questioning Mr. Hussein just hours after American forces captured him, officials said. An early focus of the interrogation, they said, has been anything he knows about the guerrilla war, in hopes of quickly gleaning information that might help prevent attacks and disrupt or dismember cells responsible for the attacks.

      Mr. Hussein has also been quizzed about programs to develop unconventional weapons, according to Bush administration, Pentagon and intelligence officials, but he has so far denied the existence of such weapons. Officials said his denials were in line with statements of other top Iraqi officials who have been captured in recent months, and who still maintain that Baghdad did not have unconventional weapons.

      American interrogators took the somewhat unusual step of immediately asking Mr. Hussein about substantive issues, in part because he appeared mentally and physically fatigued, and thus his resistance to interrogation seemed low, officials said.

      Yet intelligence and military officials still said they were discounting much of the little information that Mr. Hussein had offered so far. The officials based in Washington who spoke about his interrogation were all referring to reports in briefings transmitted from Iraq.

      They said it might take weeks or months for him to face up to the reality of his situation and begin to answer questions more candidly.

      "He`s the king of denial and deception," said Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas and chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

      One administration official said: "Obviously, there are a whole lot of answers we need on a whole lot of topics. He is compliant in the sense that he is responding, as opposed to being obstinate and not speaking at all. But he is not helpful."

      Another senior administration official said Mr. Hussein "has given no indication that he will be a helpful person in getting information." But, the official said, "that is what we expected."

      Still another official who has been briefed on the first days of his captivity said, "He is denying any direct involvement in the insurgency."

      Several officials said they were not certain whether Mr. Hussein had said anything yet concerning possible Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But they said he had denied any knowledge of the fate of a United States Navy pilot who has been missing since the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

      In one of the enduring mysteries of the first war with Iraq, Lt. Cmdr. Michael Scott Speicher, an F-18 pilot, was shot down on the first day of the air war in Iraq on Jan. 17, 1991. He is the only American still officially listed as missing in action from that war. He was first believed to have been killed in action, but his body was never recovered. After obtaining intelligence reports suggesting that he might have survived the crash of his aircraft, the Navy changed his status to missing in action in 2001.

      American interrogators have learned from their experience with leaders of Al Qaeda who have been captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere that it can take long periods of captivity before resistance to questioning breaks down. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Hussein will put up the kind of stiff resistance that Qaeda operatives have shown. So far, administration officials said they were not satisfied with his answers.

      When he was captured on Saturday, Mr. Hussein had no significant means of communication, officials said, although he was seized with $750,000 in cash and a taxi was found nearby.

      Officials said he could have communicated with his lieutenants by courier, and not by cellular or satellite telephone, which was liable to be intercepted by American surveillance equipment and to give away his location.

      While the money might have been used to underwrite the insurgency, an official said it was more likely that it was "his personal safety fund."

      Maj. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of the Fourth Infantry Division whose troops conducted the raid, said before Mr. Hussein`s capture that military intelligence had determined that a sizable fund was hidden before Mr. Hussein`s ouster. Those funds, the general said, were stashed in order to finance the expected guerrilla war against the American-led alliance.

      So it would not have required Mr. Hussein`s authority to disburse money for the attacks after he fled Baghdad and went into hiding.

      Administration officials maintained a certain ambiguity about where Mr. Hussein was being interrogated.

      After his capture by troops of the Fourth Infantry and a Special Operations unit called Task Force 121, he was handed off to a team of interrogators drawn from the military`s Central Command and the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, officials said.

      Allied forces, especially from Britain, are expected to play a role in the questioning. Iraqis will be brought in to question Mr. Hussein about accusations of mass killings and other war crimes, officials said.

      Officials offered no conjecture as to why Mr. Hussein would deny involvement in the guerrilla-style insurgency, even though statements attributed to him since his ouster called on Iraqis to rise up against the Americans. It was also unknown whether he was making statements that took into account his status under international law.

      A senior administration official said Mr. Hussein was being afforded protections granted prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

      But that official said the protected status could change should it be conclusively determined that once major combat operations were over and he left power, Mr. Hussein chose to play a role in subsequent attacks against nonmilitary targets that killed or wounded large numbers of noncombatants in violation of the laws of war.

      Those attacks included the bombings of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad and the Jordanian Embassy there, as well as a number of local police stations.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:51:27
      Beitrag Nr. 10.489 ()
      December 15, 2003
      Q&A: Richard Haass on Saddam`s Capture

      From the Council on Foreign Relations, December 15, 2003


      Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the former director of policy planning in the State Department, says that the December 13 arrest of Saddam Hussein may improve the gathering of intelligence in Iraq, but he doubts that it will end the resistance or improve the political situation.

      "So, as welcome as the arrest is, I don`t think there is any evidence that it will get necessarily any safer for our troops or for Iraqi civilian officials," he says. "And it is not necessarily going to make any simpler or easier the questions of the political transition."

      Haass was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on December 15, 2003.

      Is the arrest of Saddam Hussein a major turning point?

      It`s one of those questions that only in retrospect will we know whether it marks the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning, or neither. My own hunch is that the biggest impact will be on increasing the willingness of Iraqis to provide the sort of intelligence that is essential to defeat the resistance. I don`t think in and of itself that it`s likely to do either of two things, namely lead to an end to the resistance, or secondly, lead to a sorting out of the political transition in Iraq. So, while it is obviously welcome news and then some, I suppose it is not really a turning point.

      Will it lead to enhanced stability in Iraq?

      My hunch is that we have to be prepared for increased resistance. It doesn`t look as if Saddam could have been controlling the day-to-day operations of the resistance. I think we should have every expectation that those who are out there will want to signal us that Saddam`s arrest does not end their activities. So, as welcome as the arrest is, I don`t think there is any evidence that it will get necessarily any safer for our troops or for Iraqi civilian officials. And it is not necessarily going to make any simpler or easier the questions of the political transition.

      A major question now is deciding what to do with Saddam. The Iraqi Governing Council has already set up a war crimes tribunal and presumably the Iraqis would like to try Saddam themselves. Does the United States have any real say in this matter? Could or should it try to block a unilateral Iraqi trial and try to internationalize the tribunal?

      I`m not a lawyer. But I think we are in a tricky position here. The United States probably does not have particularly strong war crimes claims against Saddam. Or to put it another way, whatever claims the United States has, I would think, are not nearly as strong as what Iraqis have, what Iranians have, and what Kuwaitis have. Also, it is probably best that any war crimes proceeding not look at the end of the day like something controlled or engineered by America. Whether one comes up with a series of separate war crimes proceedings or a hybrid one, I`m not sure. The only thing I would be uneasy with would be a proceeding dominated by Americans. What might be possible would be something where we and other members of the international community essentially arrange for some court proceeding in which it would be important that Iraqis, Iranians, and Kuwaitis all be seen to have the opportunity to press their claims.

      Of course Slobodan Milosevic, the former president of Yugoslavia, was brought before a war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

      Well, that`s another option, which is to bring Saddam before an international court and, again, as long as you had Iraqi testimony, perhaps some Iraqi lawyers, and it was on Iraqi television, I think it would probably be acceptable. The only warning is to remember that Milosevic has used these proceedings, in some ways quite effectively, to make his case before the Serbian people. And one shouldn`t rule out the possibility that Saddam could use a war crimes proceeding as something of a soap box for certain Arab nationalist-type themes.

      What will be the impact of Saddam`s capture on American domestic politics? Is it a major gain for Republicans or a setback to Democrats?

      I think it has short-term impact on both sides. It clearly changes the perception of Iraq. For the administration, it is a significant help. It helps reverse the impression that things in Iraq were moving in the wrong direction. I think for the Democrats, it is a complication. Several weeks ago, the Democrats ran into the problem of the surprisingly high economic growth statistics, which took away, to some extent, the economic issue. And the arrest of Saddam, at least for a week or two, could complicate [the Democrats` attempt to base] the campaign on the war issue. But again, if I`m right, this will not change the fundamentals in Iraq. So a month from now, two months from now, six months from now, it will be the situation in Iraq that will determine whether the Democrats have an issue on which the president is vulnerable.

      When we last talked, it was just after L. Paul [Jerry] Bremer III had been in Washington but before the announcement of the plan to turn over sovereignty to the Iraqis by the end of next June. You anticipated the plan by saying that the United States had no choice but to speed up the turnover to the Iraqis. Is that still your view?

      Do I think it is ideal? No. In the best of all possible worlds, the transition would go more slowly, and the government transfer would not occur until one had greater confidence that Iraqi society had evolved to a point where the rights of individuals and groups were more likely to be protected. That said, I don`t think we are going to have that luxury. My prediction is that we are going to face great pressure, particularly from the leadership of the Shiite community, to stick to this timetable. They are likely to be very suspicious that any delay is aimed at them.

      The Shiites` senior cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has called for direct elections to pick the next leadership rather than the local communal caucuses put forward by the United States and Britain. I don`t see how this can be possible, given the lack of a voting list.

      Again, it is hard to see how elections could happen as soon as Sistani wants them, given the lack of voting lists and the lack of security in parts of the country. There is a tension here between the demands of the majority and both the concerns of the minority and the reality on the ground.

      Is there any way the Bush administration can translate the arrest of Saddam into a vehicle for enlarging the scope of international cooperation in Iraq?

      My own feeling is that the time for significant internationalization, particularly on the political side, has passed. The key dynamic now is between the coalition and the Iraqis. And I don`t see how creating a large international structure, a mechanism, at this point would be acceptable to either the United States or to the Iraqis. One could have made a strong case for doing it right after hostilities ended at the outset of the aftermath, but not now. I think the real question is more about military issues and economics. What is it the United States can do at this point to get Europeans and others to open up their checkbooks, to forgive debt, and provide troops?

      Is the mission of former Secretary of State James A. Baker III to settle Iraq`s international debts an important one?

      I do think the Baker mission is important. The question is whether the United States is prepared to put forth compromises, potentially on the political side, that Europeans and others would deem essential if they are to become more forthcoming on the military and economic sides. I don`t think we`ll know that until Baker completes his mission.

      What, for instance, do the French want?

      Up until now, what they have wanted is some dilution in the degree of control the United States enjoys over the occupation, and essentially the dynamic right now is a U.S.-Iraqi one. What the French have wanted is that the United States would share responsibility with other governments, whether it is under the United Nations or something more ad hoc, a de facto coalition of the willing. I think that is the real question facing the administration and, up to now, at least, the administration has not been prepared to share responsibilities with others.

      And of course, the statement issued by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz last week listing the countries eligible to bid for contracts in Iraq financed by the United States only exacerbated feelings among those left off the list.

      It surely complicates the effort. It has to make Mr. Baker`s efforts more difficult, to deny countries the right to participate in contracts at the same time you are asking them to forgive debt.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:53:44
      Beitrag Nr. 10.490 ()
      December 15, 2003
      Q&A: The Capture of Saddam

      From the Council on Foreign Relations, December 15, 2003


      What are the effects of Saddam Hussein`s capture?

      It`s uncertain what the lasting effects will be. In the short term, the December 13 arrest of Iraq`s former dictator, a key goal of U.S. troops and occupation authorities, neutralizes any role Saddam might have had in organizing resistance attacks and plotting his return to power. The psychological fallout may be significant: Iraqis will no longer fear--or, in some cases, expect--a Saddam comeback. The capture also boosts the spirit of American troops in Iraq and could undermine the resolve of resistance fighters. In domestic political terms, President Bush is receiving widespread credit for the capture.

      Are there any signs it has affected the insurgency?

      No. But U.S. officials have warned that they believe attacks will continue, at least in the near future. Some experts are expecting a short-term spike in attacks; on December 15, two suicide bombers exploded cars outside Iraqi police stations, killing at least six people and wounding 22. Over time, however, U.S. officials hope that Saddam`s capture will deflate the morale of remaining loyalists and encourage Iraqis to provide intelligence that will help the coalition root out the rest of the insurgents.

      Why might there be a short-term rise in attacks?

      Saddam loyalists might mount retaliatory attacks. In addition, the insurgency campaign includes many groups--not only Saddam supporters and former members of his Baath Party. Shadowy, radical Islamic cells, supplemented by foreign jihadists, are among those attacking U.S. forces, and these organizations are expected to continue their fight, experts say. "The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq," President Bush said in his December 14 address after Saddam`s capture. "We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East."

      Was Saddam running the insurgency?

      Initial reports suggest his role in directing the insurgency was limited. There were no cellular telephones, radios, or other communication devices found with him, and his appearance indicated to some experts that he was more focused on hiding out than actively commanding resistance fighters. "I believe he was there more for moral support," said Major General Raymond Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, the unit whose troops captured Saddam. "I don`t believe he was coordinating the effort because I don`t believe there`s any national coordination." Time magazine reported, however, that Saddam was found with a briefcase containing minutes from a Baghdad meeting of resistance leaders, and U.S. officials say that information has already led to additional arrests.

      Is it significant that Saddam had no communication gear?

      Not necessarily. He could have communicated with resistance cells through messengers. Some say the fact that he was found with $750,000 in cash is significant. "One of the things that the Saddam Hussein family and his clique of intimates were doing is they were providing money to people to go out and engage in acts against the coalition and against the Iraqi people. So that`s ended, and that`s a good thing," Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said.

      How many foreign jihadists appear to be in Iraq?

      It`s unclear, but U.S. officials have estimated a few hundred such fighters have moved into Iraq to supplement the efforts of Iraqi Islamists fighting coalition forces. Newsweek has reported that al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan may have made a strategic decision to shift more resources to battling U.S. forces in Iraq, and The New York Times has reported on a network that is channeling jihadists to Iraq from Europe. The bulk of the insurgency fighters, however, appear to be Iraqis, many experts say.

      How have the Iraqi people reacted to Saddam`s arrest?

      Thousands took to the streets waving flags, dancing, and shooting off bursts of celebratory gunfire. The vast majority of Iraqis--especially in Iraq`s repressed Shiite majority and Kurdish minority--are believed to be relieved and elated by Saddam`s capture, experts say. Because of widespread fear that the former dictator could return, U.S. officials and some experts predict that Saddam`s capture will encourage more Iraqis to work with the coalition to secure and rebuild Iraq.

      Did all Iraqis react positively?

      No. Press reports indicate that the mood is far darker in the predominately Sunni towns and neighborhoods that benefited the most from Saddam`s regime. In Tikrit, near where Saddam was found, police on December 15 broke up a pro-Saddam protest by hundreds of university students who chanted, "With our blood and with our souls, we will defend you, Saddam." One storekeeper in a Sunni district in Baghdad told The New York Times, "We Iraqis are 10 million Saddams and we will drive the Americans out, with or without our leader." Though they represent just 15 percent to 20 percent of the population, Sunnis as a whole were favored by Saddam--a fellow Sunni--and dominated the economy and politics under his rule.

      How did the capture come about?

      In the last month, U.S. officials had used updated intelligence to capture and interrogate people who could be hiding Saddam, including bodyguards, former palace workers, and tribal leaders. According to press reports, Saddam`s capture came after the arrest and interrogation of one of his clan members on December 12, who revealed under questioning the location the farmhouse outside Tikrit where Saddam was hiding. Under a new intelligence-sharing program in Baghdad, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officers, military Special Operations teams, and the Defense Intelligence Agency all worked together--along with some 600 soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division--to pull off the capture.

      What impact does Saddam`s capture have on intelligence gathering?

      It`s unclear, experts say. Saddam could be a priceless intelligence resource. Press reports indicate that so far he has not cooperated with his interrogators. If he were compelled to talk, and if interrogators thought his accounts were credible, Saddam could give information about the resistance, Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, or his alleged connection to al Qaeda and other terrorists.

      Will Saddam`s capture affect the hunt for WMD?

      If he talks frankly to interrogators about his chemical and biological weapons program--for example, admitting to the existence of suspected "seed stocks" for biological weapons in Iraq or elsewhere--guides them to weapons stockpiles, or sheds light on his nuclear ambitions, his capture could confirm the administration`s claims that Iraq had WMD and intended to use them.

      Will his capture speed the arrest of other regime loyalists?

      Again, it depends on the results of the interrogation. Saddam may provide information on the whereabouts of other fugitive members of his regime. Other Iraqis may now be emboldened to come forward with similar intelligence. Of the 55 top members of Saddam`s regime--called High Value Targets by U.S. forces--13 remain free. At the top of the U.S. hit list is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a close Saddam aide who U.S. officials say may be directly organizing resistance.

      What`s the impact on U.S. intelligence agencies?

      The capture provides a kind of vindication after a series of setbacks that had threatened the credibility of the intelligence agencies, some experts say. The CIA and other intelligence agencies have been criticized for failing to forecast and prevent the September 11 attacks; overestimating the threat Iraq`s WMD program posed; and failing to capture Osama bin Laden or Saddam, despite massive manhunts and multimillion-dollar rewards. President Bush, in his December 14 speech, praised "the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator`s footprints in a vast country."

      How will the arrest affect the United States` relations with its allies?

      It may cause relations to warm. Even world leaders who had opposed the war celebrated the capture of a brutal dictator and expressed hopes that it would mark the beginning of a new phase of stability in Iraq and the region. The leaders of France and Germany, strong opponents of the war in Iraq, put aside recent animosity over an administration decision to bar non-coalition countries from Iraq reconstruction contracts and praised the United States. The arrest "opens up the possibility of turning the page on some of the damage" of the past, says Lee Feinstein, acting director of the Council on Foreign Relations Washington program. "Particularly if the United States decides to internationalize the prosecution of Saddam--if it gives a clear role to the United Nations and documents Saddam`s crimes for the world--it could bring European countries back into the process."

      Will it assist efforts to internationalize the occupation?

      Possibly, experts say, if the administration can use current international support to increase other countries` willingness to contribute to the Iraq reconstruction efforts. "It gives us another opportunity to, in [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair`s words, `reach out and reconcile` with our European allies," says Lawrence J. Korb, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He says much depends on U.S. willingness to give our allies something they want in exchange for their help on Iraq reconstruction and debt relief: for example, installing a United Nations administrator to help oversee the election process after the Coalition Provisional Authority pulls out in June 2004.

      What is the domestic political fallout?

      "It`s very definitely a big boost" for Bush, Korb says. "Catching Saddam makes it much more difficult to criticize the president [and] splits the Democratic opposition." Others say it`s too soon to tell--and the election is too far away. "Events tend to color how we view the past," says James M. Lindsay, vice president, Maurice R. Greenberg chair, and director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "If Iraq is going well next year, the president`s a hero. If it`s going badly, he`ll get shellacked by his critics."

      -- by Sharon Otterman and Esther Pan, staff writers, cfr.org



      Copyright 2003 |
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 10:58:05
      Beitrag Nr. 10.491 ()
      December 16, 2003
      THE SURRENDER
      U.S. Officers Display the `Rat Hole` Where Hussein Hid
      By JOHN F. BURNS

      AD DWAR, Iraq, Dec. 15 — After the gilded palaces and the tyrant`s life of luxury, it came down to this for Saddam Hussein: a final hiding place beneath a scrappy peasant farmer`s courtyard that was as small and dark and dank as a coffin, and a trembling decision to surrender that saved him from an almost certain death at the hands of American troops.

      The 43-year-old Chicago-born officer who led the raid, Col. James B. Hickey of the Army`s Fourth Infantry Division, stood near what he called "the rathole" on Monday. He described to reporters how soldiers peering down into the shaft with weapons and bright lights, with orders to kill Mr. Hussein if he put up a fight, held back when they saw he carried no body belt bomb or gun and appeared to be pleading for his life.

      Then they hauled the man they had sought relentlessly for eight months into the chilly night air, restrained him with white plastic handcuffs that held his hands behind his back and placed a plastic hood over his head, just as they have done with thousands of other Iraqi detainees.

      One of the surprises of a visit to the site of Mr. Hussein`s capture was the size of the underground hiding place where he was found.

      It was more cramped and airless than it appeared in photographs released by the Army on Sunday. Its concrete entrance at ground level was barely large enough for a burly man like Mr. Hussein, who is close to 6 feet tall and was believed to have weighed about 200 pounds before he went on the run, to squeeze through.

      A reporter of about the former Iraqi ruler`s size went down into the hole and discovered that Mr. Hussein would have had to lower himself awkwardly down the shaft of what amounted to an inverted T. He then would have had to twist and slide until he was lying flat in the cramped concrete-walled, wood beam-roofed tunnel. It was about 8 feet long, 30 inches high and 30 inches wide. It was there that he was lying when the American raid broke over him.

      Even a few minutes in the tunnel, in daylight, was enough to foster claustrophobia.

      Those who built it — possibly the two men captured along with Mr. Hussein, whom the Army has not identified — had installed a small, six-inch-high ventilation fan above where Mr. Hussein appeared to have placed his feet, a jutting steel pipe for further ventilation and a small light that appeared not to work.

      The only traces of its former inhabitant that remained after an American military sweep were several used cotton swabs and an empty black plastic bag.

      From this last miserable redoubt, at 8.26 p.m. on Saturday, Iraq time, the man who sent hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to their deaths at the battlefront and the torture chambers and the gallows made a decisive choice for life, his own.

      From the bottom of the shoulder-wide shaft, the 66-year-old former dictator thrust both hands skyward, signaling to Special Operations forces soldiers that he would offer no resistance.

      Colonel Hickey said the Americans learned from an interrogation of one of Mr. Hussein`s relatives barely three hours earlier that he could be found in the area near the peasant`s house, among flat, silted lands along the Tigris River rich with citrus orchards and palm groves.

      But to preserve secrecy, and perhaps to keep the 600 American soldiers on the raid as cool-headed as possible, they avoided using the former Iraqi ruler`s name. They referred to him in the jargon of the raid as "HVT One," meaning High-Value Target No. 1.

      Mr. Hussein, straggly bearded, unkempt and, Colonel Hickey said, "nervous" and "disoriented" after months on the run, did not try to hide his identity.

      As he emerged from the shaft, he addressed the Special Operations forces soldiers with a directness, and at least a hint of delusion about his altered status, that could stand as a epigram for a man so used to dictating terms that he thought, even at the end, that he could haggle over conditions for his surrender.

      "I am Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq, and I am willing to negotiate," he said, in halting English, as recounted by Colonel Hickey on the basis of what he was told later by the Special Operations forces. The Army has declined to identify the soldiers beyond saying that they were members of Task Force 121, a Special Operations unit that includes Central Intelligence Agency officers.

      The Americans, Colonel Hickey said, were ready with an ironic riposte of their own that may still have Mr. Hussein puzzling in the unidentified "high security detention facility," probably near Baghdad, to which he was moved by helicopter some time on Sunday.

      "President Bush sends his regards," they said.

      Colonel Hickey said that none of the procedures used in handling Mr. Hussein differed in any way from those applied to the lowliest of his followers, and that they included an authorization to "kill or capture" Mr. Hussein as judged necessary.

      Asked if the Special Operations troops had been standing over the bunker with unpinned hand grenades, ready to stop anybody in the shaft from attacking his would-be captors, Colonel Hickey smiled.

      "He was wise not to waste much time," the colonel said.

      In a similar vein, when asked how American troops confirmed Mr. Hussein`s identity, the colonel replied, "The fact that he announced himself as Saddam Hussein helped."

      A similarly understated, even laconic, quality characterized the radio exchanges between the American soldiers who raided the house and commanders who held back with the surrounding force of Humvees, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and a dozen patrolling helicopters.

      Within moments of Mr. Hussein stepping out of the bunker, Colonel Hickey said, the troops at the house radioed to say they believed they had captured "HVT One."

      "You mean you have Saddam?" he asked. "Yes, Saddam," the men at the house replied. "That`s great," Colonel Hickey said, concluding the exchange.

      With confirmation that Mr. Hussein had been captured, Colonel Hickey radioed the news to Maj. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the Fourth Infantry division commander, a former linebacker for the Army football team, who started the news on the way up the chain of command to the White House.

      "I said, `General Odierno, we`ve captured HVT One,` " Colonel Hickey said.

      "And the general said, `Really?` And I said, `Yes, sir.` "

      The scene on Monday near Mr. Hussein`s hiding place provided further clues of the dismally austere life that was the former dictator`s, at least in the last hours or days before his capture. Just how long he stayed here was not clear.

      Inside a concrete hut, belongings that could have been his — two pairs of cheap, unworn Iraqi-made black shoes, three pairs of large men`s white boxer shorts and two T-shirts still in their plastic wrappings, several well-thumbed books of Arabic poetry, and, in a food shelf and a small refrigerator, a jar of honey, some tinned pears and a packet of coconut chocolate Bounty bars — were strewn about a single, unmade bed.

      The unworn clothing and shoes suggested provisions for somebody who arrived without baggage, and needed emergency supplies.

      American intelligence officers have said that repeated tip-offs on the whereabouts of Mr. Hussein, none of them decisive until Sunday, had shown a pattern of his moving rapidly from place to place, often in the Tikrit area, since his overthrow by the American invasion in April.

      Colonel Hickey said his troops had mounted 12 such operations in pursuit of Mr. Hussein in the First Brigade`s area of operations, the upper Tigris River valley, since April.

      How close the latest raid may have come to failure was suggested in Colonel Hickey`s account of how Mr. Hussein was discovered.

      He said troops mounting the raid on Saturday had pounced on two other houses in a target area about half a mile wide and a mile and a half deep on the Tigris`s eastern bank, about 10 miles southeast of Tikrit and less than a mile to the northwest of Ad Dwar.

      The area was well known to Mr. Hussein, who was born in a poor village a few miles away beside the Tigris, to a family that had supported itself, in part, by piracy against boats carrying goods down the river to Baghdad.

      Nor was it the first time that he had found refuge in the area. As a 22-year-old wanted for his part in a failed assassination attempt on Iraq`s then ruler, Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, in 1959, he passed through the area on his way to sanctuary in Egypt. Then, according to the legend he fostered later, he dressed as a woman and hid for days in a village well.

      Ad Dwar, a dour cluster of concrete-walled homes and shops about a mile from the house where Mr. Hussein hid, is closely associated with Izzat Ibrahim, Mr. Hussein`s widely feared, ginger-haired vice president and No. 2 man.

      Mr. Ibrahim is believed by American commanders to be directing at least part of the insurgency against coalition forces, and remains, after Mr. Hussein`s arrest, the highest-ranking Iraqi still at large on the high-priority target list of 55 names that American officials issued in April.

      After an initial sweep had found nothing at the first two houses, code-named Wolverine One and Wolverine Two by the Americans, Colonel Hickey said, the American troops moved northwest and checked the house where Mr. Hussein was eventually found.

      On the first sweep, the troops found nothing.

      But after the troops involved in the Saturday raid cordoned off the area and conducted a more detailed search, one of the Special Operations soldiers noticed an edge of a fabric-backed rubber mat peeking through soil edging the concrete floor in the home`s courtyard, tugged on it and swept the earth away to find a rectangular foam plug about 20 inches high and perhaps 3 feet long, topped with two looped ropes as handles.

      Lifting it, he found the hiding space. Soon after, Mr. Hussein rose in an appeal for the soldiers not to kill him.

      American troops here were not inclined to triumphalism on Monday. They know they face a continuing insurgency.

      "This is business," Colonel Hickey said. But he added a hopeful note, that insurgent strikes might intensify in retaliation for the arrest of Mr. Hussein, but would probably fall away later as the demoralizing effect of the capture sinks in.

      "From a military point of view, if you lop the head off a snake, the snake`s not going to be so viable after that," he said.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 11:02:45
      Beitrag Nr. 10.492 ()
      December 16, 2003
      Painting Hussein`s Portrait

      Saddam Hussein has long been an obsession for the world, and particularly the United States. Yet Iraq was so cut off from the outside that it was impossible for anyone — including, it seems, American intelligence officials — to get a clear picture of who he really was. We got a series of vivid but inconsistent portraits, colored to fit various political agendas. Now that the real man is under interrogation, we hope a single realistic version will emerge.

      George W. Bush`s Saddam Hussein was both vicious and efficient — a combination that made him a clear and imminent threat to international security. He not only had the will to harm his neighbors and the United States, he had the means. He was rapidly expanding an arsenal of biological and chemical weapons while steadily moving closer to becoming a nuclear power. He was so clever and well organized that he might surprise the world with nuclear weapons at any time. And although his regime was a secular one, it was so single-minded in its anti-Americanism that it was undoubtedly working with the radical Islamist terrorists of Al Qaeda.

      Others had radically different pictures of the man running Iraq — ranging from the high-minded defender of Muslim honor conjured up on the Arab streets to the unappetizing but rational trading partner who many European leaders believed could be handled through a continued application of carrots and sticks.

      After the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it seemed that everyone might have given him too much credit. Pictures of the Hussein family`s multiple palaces showed each one looking more like a bad Las Vegas hotel suite than the last. The country was a mess, with crumbling infrastructure even in the critical oil fields. No weapons of mass destruction turned up, and some Iraqi science officials claimed that since the first gulf war in 1991, the fearsome arsenal had existed only in the imagination of the West, and perhaps of the tyrant himself.

      But as the increasingly violent weeks of occupation dragged on, people began wondering whether Mr. Hussein was pursuing a new, clever strategy. Had the United States been lured into Iraq to founder like Napoleon in Russia, while the Republican Guard melted into the landscape to fight a guerrilla war under the direction of the missing dictator?

      The bedraggled man pulled out of a hole near Tikrit certainly did not look like a military genius. When he comes to trial, perhaps the Iraqi people will finally learn whether they were governed for so many years by a cunning tyrant or by one who at some point turned into an out-of-touch thug, allowing his brutal underlings to do whatever they wanted to keep a terrorized populace subdued. Interrogators will certainly be trying to figure out whether weapons of mass destruction were being produced and stockpiled. They may discover that the first Bush administration was right in believing that having been thoroughly defeated in 1991 and kept under an international embargo, Mr. Hussein no longer posed a major military threat.

      The one thing on which everyone now agrees is that this man caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people and kept most of the rest in fear and misery. Ironically, that was a vision first painted nearly 15 years ago by international human rights groups, during a period in which American presidents, as well as most of the rest of the world, treated him as a valuable ally and a bulwark against Iranian extremism.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 11:08:02
      Beitrag Nr. 10.493 ()
      Brooks ist Neocon und Schreiber bei Weekly Standard und Wall Street Journal.

      December 16, 2003
      OP-ED COLUMNIST
      Dreams and Glory
      By DAVID BROOKS

      oward Dean is the only guy who goes to the Beverly Hills area for a gravitas implant. He went to the St. Regis Hotel, a mile from Rodeo Drive, to deliver a major foreign policy speech, and suddenly Dr. Angry turned into the Rev. Dull and Worthy.

      The guy who has been inveighing against the Iraq war as the second coming of Vietnam spent his time talking about intelligence agency coordination as if he had been suckled at the Council on Foreign Relations. The guy who just a few days ago stood next to Al Gore as the former vice president called Iraq the worst mistake in American history has suddenly turned sober.

      Sure, he did get off a classic Deanism. He conceded that the capture of Saddam had made American soldiers safer, but, unwilling to venture near graciousness, he continued, "But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

      Still, the speech was respectable and serious. Coming on the same day as President Bush`s hastily called news conference, it affords us the opportunity to compare the two men`s approaches to the war on terror.

      And indeed, there is one big difference. George Bush fundamentally sees the war on terror as a moral and ideological confrontation between the forces of democracy and the forces of tyranny. Howard Dean fundamentally sees the war on terror as a law and order issue. At the end of his press conference, Bush uttered a most un-Deanlike sentiment:

      "I believe, firmly believe — and you`ve heard me say this a lot, and I say it a lot because I truly believe it — that freedom is the almighty God`s gift to every person — every man and woman who lives in this world. That`s what I believe. And the arrest of Saddam Hussein changed the equation in Iraq. Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq."

      Bush believes that God has endowed all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the most important of which is liberty. Every time he is called upon to utter an unrehearsed thought, he speaks of the war on terror as a conflict between those who seek to advance liberty to realize justice, and those who oppose the advance of liberty: radical Islamists who fear religious liberty, dictators who fear political liberty and reactionaries who fear liberty for women.

      Furthermore, Bush believes the U.S. has a unique role to play in this struggle to complete democracy`s triumph over tyranny and so drain the swamp of terror.

      Judging by his speech yesterday, Dean does not believe the U.S. has an exceptional role to play in world history. Dean did not argue that the U.S. should aggressively promote democracy in the Middle East and around the world.

      Instead, he emphasized that the U.S. should strive to strengthen global institutions. He argued that the war on terror would be won when international alliances worked together to choke off funds for terrorists and enforce a global arms control regime to keep nuclear, chemical and biological materials away from terror groups.

      Dean is not a modern-day Woodrow Wilson. He is not a mushy idealist who dreams of a world government. Instead, he spoke of international institutions as if they were big versions of the National Governors Association, as places where pragmatic leaders can go to leverage their own resources and solve problems.

      The world Dean described is largely devoid of grand conflicts or moral, cultural and ideological divides. It is a world without passionate nationalism, a world in which Europe and the United States are not riven by any serious cultural differences, in which sensible people from around the globe would find common solutions, if only Bush weren`t so unilateral.

      At first, the Bush worldview seems far more airy-fairy and idealistic. The man talks about God, and good versus evil. But in reality, Dean is the more idealistic and naïve one. Bush at least recognizes the existence of intellectual and cultural conflict. He acknowledges that different value systems are incompatible.

      In the world Dean describes, people, other than a few bizarre terrorists, would be working together if not for Bush. In the Dean worldview, all problems are matters of technique and negotiation.

      Dean tried yesterday to show how sober and serious he could be. In fact, he has never appeared so much the dreamer, so clueless about the intellectual and cultural divides that really do confront us and with which real presidents have to grapple.


      E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 11:09:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10.494 ()
      December 16, 2003
      OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
      A Brief History of the Resistance
      By JAY WINIK

      CHEVY CHASE, Md. — No less than Napoleon would recognize today`s Iraqi battlefield. Two suicide bombers attacked Iraqi police and American forces yesterday, showing that the local insurgency that has plagued allied troops over the last six months continues despite the capture of Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the word "guerrilla" comes from the Spanish insurgency against France in the early 1800`s — a campaign, seemingly without leaders or direction, that at one point tied up three of Napoleon`s armies.

      Of course, the United States and its allies in Iraq are not Napoleonic legions, seeking to subdue a continent as part of some grand imperial scheme; nor has a guerrilla movement engulfed the entire Iraqi nation. And the stunning capture of Mr. Hussein, the symbolic leader of the resistance, is bound to be a serious blow to the guerrillas. But in spite of this remarkable turn of events, it would be a profound mistake for American leaders to believe the worst is over in Iraq.

      For starters, it defies credulity to believe that Mr. Hussein, literally holed up in the ground, has been directing the resistance. What is equally clear is that day by day, as the grim reports of more casualties and deadly bombings have arrived, these few thousand guerrillas have nonetheless been able to wreak disproportionate havoc on some 150,000 allied troops and about 100,000 Iraqi security forces — and can continue to do so. It would be a serious misjudgment to see the guerrillas simply as an anarchic street gang run amok or solely as creatures of Mr. Hussein himself.

      The more logical worry is that the guerrillas have been acting quite separately from Mr. Hussein, and may be increasingly well financed and organized for the long haul. As L. Paul Bremer III, America`s administrator for Iraq, said last week, there is likely to be an increase in attacks in coming months. So amid the euphoria over the news of Mr. Hussein`s capture looms a larger question: what does history tell us about the prospects for success against a guerrilla insurgency committed to fighting until the bitter end? Here, the evidence is sobering.

      At its essence, guerrilla warfare is how the weak make war against the strong. Insurrectionist, subversive and chaotic, its application is classic and surprisingly simple: concentrate strength against vulnerability. As most Americans know from the Vietnam experience, guerrilla warfare can work with frightening success.

      But Vietnam is not the only template, and its "lessons" may be misleading. America is not the only nation that has been a victim of guerrilla conflict. An astounding number of other world powers, large and small, have been humbled by guerrilla war in the last century alone.

      At the turn of the 20th century, the heavily outnumbered Boers in South Africa staved off the mightiest force in the globe, the British empire, for four long years. In the late 1950`s and early 60`s the Algerians used guerrilla tactics with devastating success against the far more powerful French. The Khmer Rouge employed them to come to power in Cambodia almost 30 years ago. And Palestinian forces have relied on these tactics for almost three decades against Israel.

      Far from being simply a phenomenon of the most recent century, the pedigree of guerrilla warfare dates to the earliest days of human combat. Five hundred years before the coming of Jesus, the ceaseless harassment and lightening strikes of the nomadic Scythians blunted the best efforts by King Darius I of Persia to subdue them. In Spain in the second century B.C., the Romans suffered humiliating defeats and required several decades to surmount the tactics of the Lusitanians and Celtiberians. Later, in Wales, the conquering English endured some 200 years of acrimonious struggle before they prevailed. And Napoleon, of course, was forced to give up on the Iberian Peninsula only a few years after he occupied it.

      In far too many guerrilla wars, the military balance becomes almost meaningless; more frightening than the actual casualties are the demoralization and exhaustion that regular armies feel, even against small numbers of terrorists and guerrillas. Deprived of the fruits of closure, of the legitimacy of victory, at what point does the occupier deem that the cruelties of a guerrilla war are no longer worth it? As a dispatch from North Africa to King Louis-Philippe of France in 1833 stated: "We have surpassed in barbarity the barbarians we came to civilize."

      It is this grim specter, more than any other, that haunts the American experience in Iraq. To guard against it America need only reach into its own experience in the Civil War.

      Missouri, a slave state that did not secede, was deeply divided in the war. As a result it was consumed by a nearly unbreakable cycle of revenge and retaliation: houses and towns were torched, trains and stages were attacked, steamboats came under repeated sniper fire. Enemies were not just killed, they were often mutilated. In turn, federal troops took their own bloody revenge. And the true victims, of course, were innocent civilians squeezed between the warring parties.

      As one of Abraham Lincoln`s generals mourned, "No policy worked; every effort poured fuel on the fire." Another put it more fearfully: guerrilla war, he said, was "the external visitation of evil." In the end, Missouri was saved not by the forces that inhabited its borders, but by Robert E. Lee`s surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox and a decision by Southern fighters, including Lee, to reject pleas to continue a guerrilla conflict.

      There is hope that insurgents in Iraq may make a similar decision. Even if they don`t, however, there are a few examples of failed guerrilla wars. In Russia in 1773 and 1774, Catherine the Great stamped out the Pugachev rebellion before dissent swept the nation by capturing and killing Emilian Pugachev himself. In 1989, Khmer Rouge forces failed to return to power in Cambodia because after Vietnam`s withdrawal they lacked widespread support and because the international community joined together to set in motion a more representative Cambodian government.

      The best that American forces can now do — and it is no small task — is to provide breathing space for a viable Iraqi political process to take hold. Success in quelling this guerrilla war will depend less on the military than on politics and diplomacy. Success will come when the Iraqi people themselves, with American assistance, unite behind a new representative government and political pluralism. If they can, then over time the guerrillas will ultimately be reduced to rogue bandits.

      Absent rapid reconciliation, however, determined guerrillas can still become the force on which Iraq`s political future turns. It would be a sad and tragic result indeed if America freed Iraq from the clutches of a totalitarian regime and a murderous tyrant only to watch it dwindle into a failed state.

      Whether the military should have prepared for guerrilla resistance before committing to war is an important debate. But it should not distract from focusing on the current challenge. Far too often, guerrilla wars have festered for years, unduly complicating the process of reconciliation. With the capture of Saddam Hussein, perhaps the United States can now defy this cruel pattern of history.


      Jay Winik is author of "April 1865: The Month That Saved America."



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 11:18:21
      Beitrag Nr. 10.495 ()
      December 16, 2003
      OP-ED COLUMNIST
      Patriots and Profits
      By PAUL KRUGMAN

      Last week there were major news stories about possible profiteering by Halliburton and other American contractors in Iraq. These stories have, inevitably and appropriately, been pushed temporarily into the background by the news of Saddam`s capture. But the questions remain. In fact, the more you look into this issue, the more you worry that we have entered a new era of excess for the military-industrial complex.

      The story about Halliburton`s strangely expensive gasoline imports into Iraq gets curiouser and curiouser. High-priced gasoline was purchased from a supplier whose name is unfamiliar to industry experts, but that appears to be run by a prominent Kuwaiti family (no doubt still grateful for the 1991 liberation). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers documents seen by The Wall Street Journal refer to "political pressures" from Kuwait`s government and the U.S. embassy in Kuwait to deal only with that firm. I wonder where that trail leads.

      Meanwhile, NBC News has obtained Pentagon inspection reports of unsanitary conditions at mess halls run by Halliburton in Iraq: "Blood all over the floors of refrigerators, dirty pans, dirty grills, dirty salad bars, rotting meat and vegetables." An October report complains that Halliburton had promised to fix the problem but didn`t.

      And more detail has been emerging about Bechtel`s much-touted school repairs. Again, a Pentagon report found "horrible" work: dangerous debris left in playground areas, sloppy paint jobs and broken toilets.

      Are these isolated bad examples, or part of a pattern? It`s impossible to be sure without a broad, scrupulously independent investigation. Yet such an inquiry is hard to imagine in the current political environment — which is precisely why one can`t help suspecting the worst.

      Let`s be clear: worries about profiteering aren`t a left-right issue. Conservatives have long warned that regulatory agencies tend to be "captured" by the industries they regulate; the same must be true of agencies that hand out contracts. Halliburton, Bechtel and other major contractors in Iraq have invested heavily in political influence, not just through campaign contributions, but by enriching people they believe might be helpful. Dick Cheney is part of a long if not exactly proud tradition: Brown & Root, which later became the Halliburton subsidiary doing those dubious deals in Iraq, profited handsomely from its early support of a young politician named Lyndon Johnson.

      So is there any reason to think that things are worse now? Yes.

      The biggest curb on profiteering in government contracts is the threat of exposure: sunshine is the best disinfectant. Yet it`s hard to think of a time when U.S. government dealings have been less subject to scrutiny.

      First of all, we have one-party rule — and it`s a highly disciplined, follow-your-orders party. There are members of Congress eager and willing to take on the profiteers, but they don`t have the power to issue subpoenas.

      And getting information without subpoena power has become much harder because, as a new report in U.S. News & World Report puts it, the Bush administration has "dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government." Since 9/11, the administration has invoked national security to justify this secrecy, but it actually began the day President Bush took office.

      To top it all off, after 9/11 the U.S. media — which eagerly played up the merest hint of scandal during the Clinton years — became highly protective of the majesty of the office. As the stories I`ve cited indicate, they have become more searching lately. But even now, compare British and U.S. coverage of the Neil Bush saga.

      The point is that we`ve had an environment in which officials inclined to do favors for their business friends, and contractors inclined to pad their bills or do shoddy work, didn`t have to worry much about being exposed. Human nature being what it is, then, the odds are that the troubling stories that have come to light aren`t isolated examples.

      Some Americans still seem to feel that even suggesting the possibility of profiteering is somehow unpatriotic. They should learn the story of Harry Truman, a congressman who rose to prominence during World War II by leading a campaign against profiteering. Truman believed, correctly, that he was serving his country.

      On the strength of that record, Franklin Roosevelt chose Truman as his vice president. George Bush, of course, chose Dick Cheney.



      Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 11:22:32
      Beitrag Nr. 10.496 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 11:23:42
      Beitrag Nr. 10.497 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 11:28:31
      Beitrag Nr. 10.498 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 11:33:11
      Beitrag Nr. 10.499 ()
      washingtonpost.com
      U.S. Troops Kill 11 in Iraq Firefight


      By Slobodan Lekic
      The Associated Press
      Tuesday, December 16, 2003; 4:52 AM


      BAGHDAD, Iraq - American troops who came under attack killed 11 assailants in a town north of Baghdad, the military said Tuesday, a day after U.S. commanders said Saddam Hussein was providing useful insights into Iraq`s escalating insurgency.

      In Saddam`s hometown of Tikrit, a roadside bomb injured three soldiers on Tuesday.

      Gunmen ambushed a U.S. patrol Monday afternoon in the town of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, a military statement said. The attackers used automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades but caused neither casualties nor damage to the patrol which called in reinforcements, the statement said.

      A company commander on the scene said 11 insurgents were killed in the ensuing firefight.

      Samarra, a volatile town in the so-called Sunni Triangle north and west of Baghdad, was the scene of clashes between U.S. troops and insurgents last month. U.S. commanders initially claimed to have killed 54 guerrillas, but local residents and police reported that less than 10 people - most of them civilians - died in the firefight.

      In Tikrit, U.S. officers said three soldiers were wounded on Tuesday by a roadside bomb. Two were said to have sustained serious injuries.

      Meanwhile, a military statement said that soldiers in the town of Ramadi west of Baghdad killed three protesters and wounded two more on Monday, after up to 750 people rallied in a show of support for Saddam.

      The statement said that U.S. troops were fired upon repeatedly and that one soldier was wounded.

      Pro-Saddam demonstrations have been held in several Iraqi towns, casting doubts on claims by the U.S.-led coalition that the people of Iraq universally welcomed his arrest.

      A military said Tuesday that a U.S. soldier died when he fell out of the vehicle he was riding north of Baghdad. It did not provide further details on the incident.


      © 2003 The Associated Press
      Avatar
      schrieb am 16.12.03 11:42:26
      Beitrag Nr. 10.500 ()
      Interessant, da der Begriff `Spider Hole` nirgends zu finden war. Er wurde nach den hier aufgeführten Erklärungen falsch benutzt, da ein S H ein ein Loch bezeichnet, in dem sich Soldaten eingraben, bis der Gegner vorbei ist, um dann von hinten anzugreifen.

      washingtonpost.com
      `Spider Hole`: The Origin Of the Species


      By Libby Copeland
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Tuesday, December 16, 2003; Page C01


      Even in an age fraught with military euphemisms, when phrases such as "high value target" and "improvised explosive device" haunt us with their very vagueness, there is occasionally a term of great evocative power and, yes, beauty -- a term such as "spider hole."

      Used by a military spokesman to describe the tiny, camouflaged hole-in-the-ground where Saddam Hussein was found over the weekend, the phrase conjures the lair of a sneaky, ugly, menacing creature, a thing so dumb and degraded it lives only to kill and be killed.

      On the food chain, the arachnid is below the dog, the pig and even the rat, the most popular subhuman beings we use to label folks we really don`t like. Is Hussein a mighty dictator, or just an eight-legged creature that eats flies for lunch?

      Of course, "spider hole" was not concocted to describe Hussein`s hideout. According to two historians, the term goes back at least to World War II, when it was used by Marines and Army troops fighting in the Pacific.

      "It was very common for Japanese troops to dig very small, one-man concealed foxholes," says William L. Priest, who wrote "Swear Like a Trooper: A Dictionary of Military Terms and Phrases." The man in the spider hole would wait for an enemy soldier to pass by and then would pop up, often shooting the soldier in the back.

      "It`s a suicide mission," Priest says. "Take out as many men as you can from behind before you`re taken out."

      The phrase was also used in Vietnam to describe similar underground sniping holes used by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese, according to the U.S. Army Military History Institute.

      Applied to Hussein, the term is somewhat misleading, since Hussein reportedly was using his hole for concealment rather than sniping, and he surrendered without a fight. In metaphorical terms, he was more like, well, a chicken in a basket. But spider hole is more accurate than foxhole, which Chuck Melson of the Marine Corps History and Museums Division says goes back to the Civil War, and which typically describes a hole dug quickly, not camouflaged and used by soldiers to protect themselves from enemy fire.

      In contrast to Hussein`s tiny hideaway, which appears to have been uncomfortable even in comparison to his rat`s nest of a farmhouse nearby, an actual spider hole is pretty cool because it is lined with silk and kept quite clean. About 3 percent of the "38,000 described species of spiders" are underground burrowers, and many of these are tarantulas or similar to them, says Jonathan Coddington, the curator of arachnids and myriapods at the National Museum of Natural History. The holes may be as big as three inches across and are sometimes camouflaged with leaves.

      The trapdoor spider, found mainly in tropical regions, creates a hinged door of silk and soil above its hole, and it waits patiently below ground until it detects the subtle vibration of an insect walking nearby. It gets its fangs ready.

      Then "it sticks its cephalothorax out, grabs the prey really fast and then pulls it back into the burrow," says Linda S. Rayor, an assistant professor of entomology at Cornell University. "Very, very neat."

      Rayor houses about 60 tarantulas in her office, keeps a photo on her Web site of her face framed by tarantulas and runs an outreach program to nearby schools with what she calls her "eight-legged ambassadors." She was somewhat troubled by the term "spider hole" when she heard it for the first time after Hussein`s capture.

      "I thought it was kind of an abusive term," she says -- meaning, of course, abusive toward the arachnids, not Saddam Hussein. It seems even spiders don`t want anything to do with him.



      © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      • 1
      • 21
      • 71
       Durchsuchen


      Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben


      Zu dieser Diskussion können keine Beiträge mehr verfasst werden, da der letzte Beitrag vor mehr als zwei Jahren verfasst wurde und die Diskussion daraufhin archiviert wurde.
      Bitte wenden Sie sich an feedback@wallstreet-online.de und erfragen Sie die Reaktivierung der Diskussion oder starten Sie
      hier
      eine neue Diskussion.
      Guten Morgen Mr. Bush