Guten Morgen Mr. Bush - 500 Beiträge pro Seite (Seite 44)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Nach der Zählung eines Baghdader Krankenhauses hatte die alleine mehr als 10 000 tote Zivilisten.

[Joerver]

Weltweit ab morgen im Handel!

DER SPIEGEL 38/2004 - 13. September 2004
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,317689,00.html

USA

Heiße Luft

Herausforderer John Kerry darf auf bessere Zeiten hoffen: Die Skandalautorin Kitty Kelley veröffentlicht eine Schmähschrift gegen den Bush-Clan.

Das hätte sich John Kerry früher klar machen müssen: Wer gegen einen Bush antritt, kann mit allem rechnen - mit Fairness nicht.

Kerry hätte nur seinen Freund, den republikanischen Senatskollegen John McCain, nach dessen Erfahrungen im Vorwahlkampf von South Carolina fragen müssen, wo er 2000 als Favorit gegen George W. angetreten war. So schnell konnte er sich gar nicht wehren, wie die Verleumdungen auftauchten: McCain habe seine verkrüppelte Frau verlassen, um mit einer schwarzen Hure Bastarde zu produzieren. Im Übrigen sei er geschlechtskrank und pflege profitable Verbindungen zur Mafia. McCain, unnötig zu erwähnen, verlor.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
Dass also just in dem Augenblick, in dem Herausforderer Kerry seinen Vorsprung in den Umfragen des laufenden Wahlkampfs konsolidieren konnte, bei seinen Veranstaltungen und in allen Medien bezahlte Verleumder auftraten, die Lügengeschichten über seine Dienstzeit in Vietnam verbreiteten, war eigentlich abzusehen.

Denn die Bushs sind als gnadenlose Wahlkämpfer bekannt, und Gegner, die Angst vor ihnen haben, sagen: "Sie sind Schläger." Was nicht einmal metaphorisch gemeint ist: Beim Nachzählen in Florida tauchte im November 2000 plötzlich eine Gruppe gut gekleideter Herren beim Wahlprüfungsausschuss auf und verlangte handgreiflich ein Ende der Zählerei. Nach der Herkunft der feinen Nadelstreifenanzüge ging dieser Vorfall als der "Brooks-Brothers-Krawall" in die Geschichte ein.

Ab Dienstag dieser Woche nun muss Präsident George W. Bush selbst von der Medizin schlucken, die er so gern anderen verschreibt. Denn dann erscheint - weltweit - ein Buch, das zwar nur halb so umfangreich ist wie die Clinton-Memoiren, dafür aber doppelt so spannend: Kitty Kelleys umfassende Sammlung aller Schandtaten, die sich der Präsidenten-Clan jemals hat zu Schulden kommen lassen*.

Nun wird sich darüber streiten lassen, welcher Bush am schlechtesten wegkommt, der 1972 verstorbene Sippen-Patriarch, Senator Prescott Bush, der 41. US-Präsident, George Herbert Walker, oder der 43., George W. - wahrscheinlich aber doch die in den USA als Großmutter der Nation verehrte Barbara Bush, die Kelley als eine Gifthexe mit cojones beschreibt. Sicher ist, dass der Bush-Dauerkritiker Michael Moore nach diesem Buch als penibler Dokumentarfilmer dastehen wird.

Kelley, und dafür waren bereits ihre Bestseller über Frank Sinatra, dessen Freundin Nancy Reagan oder das britische Königshaus bekannt, lädt tonnenweise Schmutz ab, der im Falle von George W. zum denkbar ungünstigsten Zeitpunkt präsentiert wird. Das meiste ist nicht ganz neu, aber es ist so liebevoll aufbereitet - und durch erstaunlich viele Zeugen abgesichert, die es wagen, ihren Namen zu nennen -, dass schlicht nicht alles als "Erfindung" abgetan werden kann, wie es das Weiße Haus schon vergangene Woche versuchte.

Dass George W. keine intellektuelle Leuchte ist, war eigentlich längst klar, Kelley aber lässt eine ganze Schar seiner Kommilitonen von den Universitäten Yale und Harvard auftreten, die es präziser wissen. "Georgie, wie wir ihn damals nannten, fehlte es völlig an intellektueller Neugier, egal auf welchem Gebiet", erinnert sich ein Tom Wilner. "Dieser Typ hat überhaupt keine Vorstellung von komplexen Dingen." Ein anderer, C. Murphy Archibald, beschreibt Bush als "Soufflé von Texas: aufgeblasen und voll heißer Luft".

Natürlich werden auch die Alkohol- und Drogenexzesse des Mannes detailliert beschrieben, der sich der britischen Königin einst als "das schwarze Schaf der Bushs" vorgestellt hatte, inzwischen aber, nach seiner "Wiedergeburt" als frommer Christ, angeblich clean ist. Nach 1974, so das Weiße Haus, habe George W. keine Drogen mehr genommen.

Falsch, behauptet Kelley. Während sein Vater Präsident gewesen sei, habe er in Camp David Kokain geschnupft. Sie will`s - nicht nur, aber auch - aus familiärer Quelle erfahren haben: Bushs Ex-Schwägerin Sharon habe, nach ihrer bitteren Scheidung von Bruder Neil, die Familiengeheimnisse ausgebreitet. Nun dementiert Sharon, aber zwei weitere Ohrenzeugen dementieren das Dementi. Nicht einmal W.s Ehefrau Laura, Umfragewerten nach die beste der Nation, bleibt verschont. Sie habe sich in Collegezeiten als Klein-Dealerin verdingt.

Der Skandalaufbereitung à la Kelley bleibt wenig verborgen. Obwohl ihre Anwälte, allesamt Experten für Verleumdungsklagen, das Buch "mit einem feinen Kamm durchgeflöht haben", kann sie weiterhin George W. mit der Abtreibung in Verbindung bringen, die eine Ex-Freundin vornehmen ließ. Frank und frei zitiert sie auch aus dem E-Mail-Wechsel zwischen Bush senior und seinen Söhnen, in dem es um Auffälligkeiten bei den primären Geschlechtsmerkmalen des Nachfolgers und Vorgängers Bill Clinton geht: "Und natürlich krümmt sich sein Schwanz nach links."

Richtig ernst wird es für den Präsidenten, der derzeit in landesweiten Umfragen führt, bei der alles entscheidenden Zahl der Wahlmänner aber womöglich hinter Kerry liegt, nur in einem Bereich. Detailliert belegt die Autorin noch einmal, wie es ihm gelungen ist, sich vor dem Kriegsdienst in Vietnam durch eine Verpflichtung als Pilot bei der Texas Air National Guard zu drücken, so wie Dutzende andere Söhne prominenter Politiker auch. Nun sieht er wie der Feigling aus, zu dem die bezahlten Veteranen seinen Rivalen durch ihre Verleumdungen machen wollten.

Und Kelley ist nicht die Einzige, die diesen Vorwurf dokumentiert: Vorige Woche berichtete der ehemalige Vize-Gouverneur von Texas, Ben Barnes, er sei es gewesen, der den Bushs diesen Gefallen arrangiert habe - eine Mauschelei, für die er sich heute schämt.

HANS HOYNG



* Kitty Kelley: "Der Bush-Clan. Die wahre Geschichte einer amerikanischen Dynastie". C. Bertelsmann Verlag, München; 752 Seiten; 26 Euro.

© DER SPIEGEL 38/2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

RONALD BROWNSTEIN / WASHINGTON OUTLOOK
How Will Voters Handle the `Truth` About Kerry and Bush?
Ronald Brownstein

September 13, 2004

Is it strategy or therapy for Democrats to escalate their attacks on President Bush`s record in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam era?

Certainly the new television ads from a liberal Texas group accusing Bush of ducking his service are cathartic for Democrats. Democrats have been seething as a Republican-leaning veterans group has accused Sen. John F. Kerry of misrepresenting his experience in Vietnam at a time when Bush was safely stateside, about 9,300 miles away. Once Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched their offensive against Kerry, the counterattack against Bush became inevitable.

But it`s another question whether the charges will help Kerry overcome Bush`s lead in the race. The dominant opinion in both parties is that Americans care far more about the choices the candidates are offering today than their personal choices 35 years ago, and that`s probably right.

But Kerry`s deterioration in the polls during August, while he faced the most withering assault from the Swift boat group, suggests these questions may be more relevant to voters than they acknowledge when asked directly. Based on Kerry`s experience, it would be foolish to assume that voters will simply dismiss the accusations about Bush as old news.

If nothing else, voters are sure to hear more about the Guard controversy by election day. Leading Democrats are now amplifying their attacks on Bush`s tenure in the Guard. Newspapers are reopening investigations into Bush`s record after reports in the Boston Globe and on CBS` "60 Minutes" (though the latter has been tangled in controversy over whether documents alleging that Bush received favorable treatment are authentic).

At the same time, Texans for Truth, the new liberal group targeting Bush`s Guard record, is determined to continue spotlighting the issue. The group, a spinoff from a Texas affiliate of the liberal online advocacy group MoveOn.org, seems to have struck the same chord with liberal donors that the Swift boat effort did with conservatives.

Glenn Smith, the veteran Texas Democratic political operative who launched Texans for Truth, says the group raised $400,000 within 72 hours after unveiling its television ad last week in which a retired lieutenant colonel from the Alabama Air National Guard said he never saw Bush at a time the future president was supposed to be serving in the same unit. With that money, Smith says, the group may both expand the buy for that initial ad and air others questioning different aspects of Bush`s Guard record.

All of this virtually ensures that the Guard issue will remain a headache and distraction for Bush, just like the Swift boat attacks were for Kerry. But the assaults on Bush probably won`t materially affect the race unless voters buy the critics` assumption that his behavior 30 years ago illuminates his values and character today. And that link may be tougher to establish.

Bush critics believe the controversy could threaten the president on four distinct fronts. Some believe suggestions that Bush tried to evade combat as a young man will undermine his moral authority to order soldiers into battle today. If voters reached that conclusion it might be devastating for Bush. But it seems unlikely many would: Other than hard-core opponents, few Americans believed President Clinton`s efforts to avoid Vietnam made him morally unfit to commit American forces in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Critics also think the questions about whether Bush fulfilled his obligations may encourage voters to see him as someone who consistently evades responsibility — the same way critics say he has refused to accept accountability for the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal or intelligence failures in Iraq. That may be an intriguing psychological theory, but it`s probably too abstract for most Americans.

A greater threat for Bush is that more revelations could erode his credibility. The new ad from Texans for Truth challenges Bush`s insistence that he fulfilled all of his duties in Alabama. The claims from Democratic former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes, repeated on CBS, that he helped Bush win his spot in the Guard at the request of a mutual friend don`t directly contradict specific statements from the president. But they do dispute Bush`s overall version of how he entered the Guard by assigning favoritism a much larger role.

Still, the consensus in both parties so far is that the evidence isn`t conclusive enough to cause most voters to decide that Bush lied in describing his record.

Instead, the greatest threat to Bush may come if the cumulative picture of his Guard experience — from Barnes` claim of intervention to the questions about whether superiors winked at irregular attendance — portrays him as a son of privilege who has enjoyed advantages unavailable to most Americans. That`s potentially dangerous because polls show many voters already question whether Bush understands the problems of average families.

As Kerry learned in August, new charges often hurt most when they reinforce old suspicions: The attack on his antiwar activities hurt him so much partly because many culturally conservative voters were already inclined to wonder if a Massachusetts Democrat shared their values.

Privilege pokes at a comparable stereotype about Republicans.

The unexpectedly large wounds Kerry suffered in the Swift boat strafing argues for caution in predicting the course of this controversy. Republicans may become energized by charges that the documents in the CBS report were forged. Democrats may be stirred by the ads expressing their belief Bush ducked his service. Voters less attached to either side may wish the campaign debate over Iraq were as thorough as the arguments about Vietnam.

The only point all might accept is that this election seems determined to prove William Faulkner was right when he ruefully declared, "The past is never dead; it`s not even past."

*

Ronald Brownstein`s column appears every Monday. See his current and past columns at The Times` website at latimes.com/brownstein.






Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Die Entwicklung der republikanischen Partei von Eisenhower über Nixon zu der heutigen Partei, eine Abrechnung, die ich schon öfter thematisiert habe.

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/190090_garrison12.html

Here`s what happened to the Republican Party

Sunday, September 12, 2004

By GARRISON KEILLOR

Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships.

They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the anti-papist anti-foreigner element.

The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned -- and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today`s. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.

In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach.

The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. "Bipartisanship is another term of date rape," says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. "I don`t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.

The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brown shirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong`s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, N.M., little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt`s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we`re deaf, dumb and dangerous.

Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires!

Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.

Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for re-election on a platform of tragedy -- the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president`s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.

The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good.

Our beloved land has been fogged with fear -- fear, the greatest political strategy ever. An ominous silence, distant sirens, a drumbeat of whispered warnings and alarms to keep the public uneasy and silence the opposition. And in a time of vague fear, you can appoint bullet-brained judges, strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill, stupefy the press, lavish gorgeous tax breaks on the rich.

There is a stink drifting through this election year. It isn`t the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision. No, it`s 9/11 that we keep coming back to. It wasn`t the "end of innocence," or a turning point in our history, or a cosmic occurrence, it was an event, a lapse of security. And patriotism shouldn`t prevent people from asking hard questions of the man who was purportedly in charge of national security at the time.

Whenever I think of those New Yorkers hurrying along Park Place or getting off the No.1 Broadway local, hustling toward their office on the 90th floor, the morning paper under their arms, I think of that non-reader George W. Bush and how he hopes to exploit those people with a little economic uptick, maybe the capture of Osama, cruise to victory in November and proceed to get some serious nation-changing done in his second term.

This year, as in the past, Republicans will portray us Democrats as embittered academics, desiccated Unitarians, whacked-out hippies and communards, people who talk to telephone poles, the party of the Deadheads. They will wave enormous flags and wow over and over the footage of firemen in the wreckage of the World Trade Center and bodies being carried out and they will lie about their economic policies with astonishing enthusiasm.

The Union is what needs defending this year. Government of Enron and by Halliburton and for the Southern Baptists is not the same as what Lincoln spoke of. This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clearcut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the Constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.

This is a great country, and it wasn`t made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we`re not getting any younger.

Dante said that the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, so I have spoken my piece, and thank you, dear reader. It`s a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning.

Reprinted by arrangement with Viking, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., from "Homegrown Democrat" by Garrison Keillor, Copyright © 2004 by Garrison Keillor.

© 1998-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Nader ist in Florida nicht(vorläufig?) zur Wahl zugelassen worden.

[Joerver]

The Real Reason We`re In Iraq
VIEW FROM THE LEFT
- Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
Monday, September 13, 2004

We should get out of Iraq immediately. Let me explain ...

But, first, bear in mind why we`re in Iraq. It has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, and it has nothing to do with the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

It has a lot to do with ambition.

Before we invaded Iraq, our politicians told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in great quantities. Secretary of State Colin Powell even went to the United Nations and described Iraq`s cache in detail, down to the pound of certain weapons.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told us that not only did Iraq have these weapons but he knew exactly where they were.

This is why I seriously doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. What our government told us defied logic and common sense.

The United Nations had inspectors in Iraq looking for weapons. They couldn`t find any. Logic and common sense, then, would have dictated that our government tell those inspectors where to look. After all, if we knew, why wouldn`t we share our knowledge with the inspectors?

We wouldn`t, of course, because we didn`t know. Our government explained its unwillingness to help by explaining that it didn`t want to compromise confidential sources.

How much sense does that make? Saddam has enough weaponry to attack the western world, and we can`t lead the UN inspectors to it because we don`t want Saddam to know how we got the information? Give me a break!

(As a footnote, it should be noted that a favorite trick of pathological liars is to "protect" their nonexistent sources of information.)

We now know for certain that Saddam did not have the weapons we used to go to war against Iraq.

And common sense tells that we didn`t attack Iraq because Saddam is a brutal dictator. He was a brutal dictator back in the days when we played footsie with him as he fought Iran. (Do a Google image search for Rumsfeld and Saddam, and you`ll find pictures of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands.)

Historically, the United States has always been friendly with brutal dictators if it`s to our financial advantage. Currently, there are other dictators afoot; Saddam wasn`t the only one.

And anyone who can read knows that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

So why did we go to war with Iraq?

The short answer is "oil." But that`s not the whole story.

Briefly, we went to war with Iraq because an influential group of conservatives (now known as "neo-cons") convinced President George W. Bush that it was in America`s best interests to conquer Iraq as a first step toward dominating the oil-producing nations in the Middle East and eventually the world.

Not insignificantly, these same neo-cons wanted to eliminate Iraq as a threat to their darling ally, Israel.

Their plan is laid out in detail on the Web at newamericancentury.org.

So we invaded Iraq not to save ourselves from weapons of mass destruction, not to rid the world of a brutal dictator and not to avenge the murders of Sept. 11. We invaded Iraq because Bush and his pals think America should rule the world.

That`s why we can`t win. The rest of the world isn`t going to let us win. The rest of the world might admire us, but they do not want to be dominated by us.

And that`s why we should get out of Iraq today. Not tomorrow, not next week, not a year from now, but today.

Try as we may, we are not going to turn Iraq into a model democracy. The Sunnis don`t want democracy. The Shiites don`t want a democracy. The Kurds don`t want a democracy.

The Saudis do not want a new democracy as a neighbor. Nor do the Kuwaitis. Nor do the Syrians. None of the countries in that region with despotic rulers want us to succeed. And don`t think for a moment they`re above slipping terrorists into Iraq to kill Americans.

The plan to conquer Iraq was half-baked from the start. Our troops were not properly trained or equipped to do the job given them. (Sent to the desert in jungle fatigues? Not given body armor? Completely untrained in handling prisoners?)

There was no "exit plan" because we never intended to exit. The plan was, and is, to build military bases in Iraq and stay there forever as cock of the walk in the Middle East.

Many of our European friends, who have a sense of history, knew better than to get involved in such a fool`s mission.

Bush may be the idealist other people think he is, but his grandiose plan for controlling the world has at least one fatal flaw: it depends, childlike, on the good will of all involved.

Yet, not even the U.S., the alleged "good guy" in this mess, has demonstrated purity. Our leaders see Iraq as a place to make money. So Bush & Co. have set up their friends to cash in on the rebuilding of Iraq, a job that should be done (for pay) by the people who built it in the first place: Iraqis.

We can`t win in Iraq. Hardly anybody wants us to. The longer we stay there, the more Iraqi children end up maimed or dead, the more of our young men and women die.

Clearly, our government lied to us, and to the world, to get us into this war. That alone should tell us it`s wrong.

Several years ago, George W. Bush made a decision to quit drinking. As one of my e-mailers suggests, we would have been better off if he had decided, instead, to quit lying.

It`s not too late, George.

Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist. His column appears Mondays. E-mail him at [e-mail].


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/200…
©2004 SF Gate

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
Informed Comment
[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Thoughts on the Middle East, History,and Religion
[/TABLE][Table align=left]

[/TABLE]

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Monday, September 13, 2004

Bloody Sunday:
110 Dead in Iraq, 200 Wounded

The Iraqi Guerrilla War erupted into a spectacular set of conflagrations on Sunday, according to Reuters` Ibon Villalabeitia, leaving at least 110 dead and, according to AP, some 200 wounded.

Baghdad
At least 7 car bombs shook the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, and guerrillas pounded the Green Zone and the area around it with at least 12 mortar strikes. Mortar shells were also launched at Abu Ghuraib prison and driver tried to get a truckbomb through its gates, but was killed by Marines. The US military and Iraqi National Guards fought a running battle in Haifa Street. The Baghdad fighting took some 37 lives.

A particularly disturbing scenario unfolded at Haifa Street, a hotbed of opposition to US presence in Iraq. The mortar attacks on the Green Zone, which houses the interim Iraqi government and the US embassy, began before dawn. When they continued into the morning, AP says, US troops went in search of the guerrillas, supported by armored vehicles. Then on Haifa Street, guerrillas took out a Bradley fighting vehicle with a car bomb, then sprayed it with machine gun fire and tossed grenades at it. This operation sounds like a well-planned piece of strategy, whereby the US forces were lured to Haifa Street by the mortar fire precisely so that they could be car-bombed and attacked. Two Bradley crewmen were injured by the car bomb, and four in the subsequent attack.

Now you have a burning Bradley fighting vehicle sitting there in the street, and a crowd gathers, many of them boys, to jeer and dance. Some of the young men haul out a banner of the Tawhid and Jihad terrorist group and hang it from a barrel sticking out of the vehicle.

Alarmed that the Bradley would now be looted for weapons and ammunition (and, some reports say, "sensitive equipment"), US troops now call in helicopter gunships. They arrive, but claim they took small arms fire from the area around the burning Bradley.

Now the tragedy unfolds. The helicopters fire repeatedly on the crowd gathered around the Bradley, killing 13 persons and wounding 61. Although some of the killed or wounded may have been guerrillas, it seems obvious that others were just curious little boys from the neighborhood. I am told some of the television footage, which I did not see, suggests that the helicopters fired into a civilian crowd.

In the street were television cameramen and Mazen Tomeizi, a Palestinian producer for the al Arabiya satellite network, He was among those hit by the helicopter fire. Reuters explains:


"The Palestinian died soon afterwards. Reuters cameraman Seif Fouad, recording the scene, was also wounded in the blast.

"I looked at the sky and saw a helicopter at very low altitude," Fouad said. "Just moments later I saw a flash of light from the Apache. Then a strong explosion," he said.

"Mazen`s blood was on my camera and face," Fouad said from his hospital bed. He said his friend screamed at him for help: "Seif, Seif! I`m going to die. I`m going to die." `



I don`t know if the helicopters actually took fire from the crowd or not. It is plausible, but given that mostly civilians appear to have been struck, it wouldn`t be strange if the US side tried to put the best possible face on the matter.

It would also be interesting to know what exactly was in that burning Bradley that was so important it was worth 13 lives and scores of wounded.

On a highway west of Baghdad, guerrillas detonated a car bomb, killing two policemen and a 12 year old boy.

Hilla

Guerrillas in the southern Shiite city of Hilla killed 3 Polish troops and wounded another 3.

Ramadi

In the Sunni Arab heartland, US helicopter gunships and tanks directed their fire at a residential district, killing 10 Iraqis. Local Iraqi health authorities said that the dead and wounded included women and children (as you would expect in an attack on a residential area).


Tal Afar

The US launched a major campaign in Tal Afar against what it says are Sunni Arab fighters, killing 51 persons. In fact, some of those fighting against the US may just be local Shiite Kurdish boys upset about the foreigners coming in.

Fallujah

Early on Monday, AP reports that US warplanes and artillery fired at Fallujah, killing 9 persons and wounding 12. AP says, "Witnesses said the bombing targeted the city`s al-Shurta neighborhood, damaging buildings and raising clouds of black smoke. Ambulances and private cars rushed the injured to hospital. Dr. Adel Khamis of the Fallujah General Hospital said at least nine people were killed, including women and children, and 12 others wounded."

The warplane strike and the helicopter gunship have become prime weapons in the US war against the urban guerrillas. This tactic raises all sorts of moral questions, including whether it is legitimate to fire into a residential area. Saddam Hussein made himself odious by doing just that in Najaf in 1991. I wouldn`t have said it was legitimate, but apparently I am one of the few in whom this tactic raises any qualms. I never see the issue reported as such, much less debated, in the US press.

posted by Juan @ [url9/13/2004 06:38:32 AM]http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109506038377115753[/url]

US Casualties in Iraq: Gustafson

Erik Gustafson writes:


"Setting the record straight, sort of...

Last week Clive Astle wrote, "Molly (Ivins) appears to have omitted counting the number killed but unidentified pending notification of kin. Total US dead is reported at 1012 as at end of August..."

Clive is double counting some U.S. military deaths. In doing so, he alarmed a number of concerned Americans into believing that the administration was withholding the 1,000+ fatality figure until after the Republican convention. Allow me to explain why Clive`s number is wrong.

Consider the following example. On Monday the Pentagon reports 10 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq. On Tuesday, the Pentagon reports that 5 soldiers died and identifies the names of 7 soldiers. The 7 soldiers named are among those who died on Monday – they are not new fatalities. Thus, the total number of U.S. fatalities for the two days is 15, not 22. Without knowing how the DoD keeps track of deaths, Clive may have double counted U.S. fatalities.

Although it’s important to remember that the Pentagon releases only "official numbers." These numbers often exclude the deaths of special operations personnel, intelligence agency personnel, or other personnel involved in clandestine operations. With that proviso, I believe the official fatality count (1,005 as of 9/9/04) is generally accurate.

Of course, U.S. military deaths are only part of the total number of U.S. casualties we are suffering in Iraq. And judging from the numbers, these other casualties are clearly being under-reported by the Pentagon.

The military is ONLY counting soldiers it classifies as “wounded in action.”

Historically, casualty counts have always included injuries and illnesses. After all, a person who becomes ill or injured in a war zone is just as much a casualty (unable to pull the trigger) as someone who is shot. In prior wars, soldiers were more likely to die or be medically evacuated due to disease than from combat (malaria, for example).

DoD is also being highly selective about what it calls "wounded in action." For example, if a convoy is ambushed and a Humvee rolls over without getting hit by a bomb or bullets, severely injuring the driver and his gunner (broken bones, paralyzed), then DoD will often exclude the soldiers in their count of wounded. The soldiers are simply listed as injured and medically evacuated. There is no official report of wounded in action and no Purple Heart Medal is awarded.

A Mississippi congressman blew the whistle on this last year, but the national press missed it....

In March, United Press International ran an article about the 18,000 soldiers medically evacuated from Iraq as of March 13, 2004. That`s far more than the 7,000 wounded the DoD reports.

Here`s another article describing how the Department of Veterans Affairs counted 33,000 Iraq and Afghan war veterans seeking healthcare. Obviously, not all of these are related to the war. However, the fact that 33,000 have sought care already is highly alarming.

Everybody killed, wounded, injured or ill in the war zone should be counted as a casualty. The press should demand a full accounting of how DoD defines their casualty counts -- the dead, wounded, injured, and ill. To show real support for our troops, I encourage folks to call their representatives and demand a GAO investigation.

And we must not forget the toll the conflict is having on Iraq`s civilian population. According to Amnesty International and others, more than 10,000 civilians have been killed since the war began. The number of total Iraqi deaths may be as high as 30,000. "


Erik K. Gustafson, Executive Director
EPIC | Education for Peace in Iraq Center
1101 Penn. Avenue SE | Washington, DC 20003 USA
tel. [phone] | fax [phone]
http://epic-usa.org


posted by Juan @ 9/13/2004 06:07:48 AM

The Fate of Iraq`s Christians: Eden Naby


Guest Editorial for Informed Comment by Eden Naby


Just after celebration of the Festival of the Cross (Aida d-Sliwa) on Friday, 10 September, the village of Baghdeda, located southeast of Mosul, on the Nineveh Plains, in the Ninawa Governorate, came under mortar attack. Thus far a complete tally of the dead and injured in this village of 30,000 Christians has not been transmitted abroad. We know that the Sheeto family lost 13-year-old Mark Louis Sheeto and that his brother and sister were critically injured.

It is unusual for information from Christian villages to filter outside the area currently under military and political pressure from the Kurdish Democratic Party. Kurds are barring Western journalists from entering villages like Dayrabun ("Monastary of the Bishop") which are not in any danger zone, but are being denied resettlement by their Christian inhabitants (reported by Thiry August, a Belgian who tried to visit the Faysh Khabour area this summer). The KDP is determined to expand its control as far to the west and south as possible into areas now inhabited by ChaldoAssyrians. Under the Transitional Administrative Law, so favorable to Kurds, the objects of Western sympathy and funds, any territory in the three provinces adjoining Dohuk, Arbil and Sulaymaniya (Ninawa, Tamim [Kirkuk] and Diyala) that Kurds can show they controlled on March 19, 2003 (prior to the invasion), may become part of the Kurdish controlled region in northern Iraq (TAL, Article 53A).

This provision allows Kurds to create "facts on the ground" in the Mosul and Kirkuk areas in particular, at the expense of unarmed ethnic and religious minorities - to wit - the Christians of Iraq, the Yezidis, the Shabat, and the Turkomens. The advantages of controlling Kirkuk are well known. But the Mosul area, now the scene of fierce attacks on Christians and Turkomens, are less well recognized.

- The Nineveh Plains hold Iraq`s largest and most fertile agricultural fields (barley, wheat and legumes). The ChaldoAssyrians had been farming these for millennia until the steady pressure of Kurdish population growth combined with Baathist village destruction forced many of them to be displaced. There is considerable evidence that Kurdish pastoralists have had a difficult time becoming productive farmers. (ASSYRIAN STAR, Spring 2004, "Helwa, the Forgotten Tragedy")

- The Nineveh Plains, through which passes the upper Tigris River and its tributaries, holds the main water source for central and south Iraq. Control of places like Faysh Khabour (to where thousands of Christian villagers are not being allowed to return [NYT Sept. 12, 2004 "Assyrians in Syria"]) lies at the juncture of both the Tigris as it enters Iraq from Turkey, and where the oil pipeline from the Kirkuk fields enters Turkey on its way to Ceyhan. The KDP, and its strategic allies, are grabbing control of Faysh Khabour and its environs, at the expense of the area`s indigenous Christian inhabitants.

- The possibility of gas fields on the Nineveh Plains makes control of this region triply attractive for the Kurds. Barzani has already threatened war with regard to Kirkuk (http://nahrain.com/d/news/04/09/10/nhr0910f.html). [It is suspicious] that that the methodical killing of Turkomens and ChaldoAssyrian leaders by "unknown" assailants stands to profit the KDP, whether this organization acts as a Sunni Muslim force or a secular Kurdish one.

The attack on Baghdeda, also known as Qaraqosh, marks the long and largely ignored attacks on Iraq`s Christians who, with the exception of some 10,000 Armenians, descendents of refugees from the atrocities of WWI, form the one million or more indigenous Christian population of Iraq. The term "Assyrian" by which this community has been known historically (always called so by their Armenian neighbors) includes several church communities of which the largest is the Chaldean Catholic. Also included are two branches of the Church of the East, and members of the Orthodox and Catholic Syrian churches, together with small Protestant and Seventh Day Adventist congregations.

Both the Baathists (in Iraq and in Syria) and the Kurds have attempted to divide this community along denominational lines for easier control. But at their own conference of Chaldeans, Syriacs and Assyrians, convened in Baghdad 22-24 October 2003, the unified, albeit artificial term, ChaldoAssyrian, was adopted to forestall Kurdish poliltical manipulation, which nonetheless continues. This term appears in the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) signed on 8 March 2004 by the Governing Council. "Assyrian," dropped from Iraqi census since 1977 as punishment for opposition to the Baath regime, is widely used in the diaspora. But TAL recognition of this community marks a historic first in Iraqi law.

The ChaldoAssyrians form the world`s last and largest compact community of Aramaic (Syriac) speakers, the oldest continuously written and spoken language of the Middle East, and after Chinese, the second oldest continuously written and spoken language of the world. This now endangered language will become extinct if the ChaldoAssyrians are forced into mass exodus from Iraq, a prospect activated by their inability to maintain a foothold, a safe haven, in northern Iraq. A combination of Kurdish chauvinism and fundamentalist terrorism (both Arab and Kurdish) has already driven large numbers, probably thousands, of ChaldoAssyrians out of the country. As Patrick Cockburn has reported recently with regard to the Turkomens, the US military is apparently being manipulated by the KDP in the attacks on Shiite Turkomens at Tel Afar, also in the path of KDP expansion (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/). Blind sympathy for Kurds is allowing the US to become complicit in the ethnic displacement of Christians as well as Turkomens. Specifically in the Christian case, the community is regularly denied funds for refugee resettlement and village reconstruction while Kurdish villagers settle on former Christian lands with US and international funding.

The early evening mortar attack on the homes of Christians in Baghdeda comes in the wake of a bloody forty days for this community, highlighted by the 1 August simultaneous bombing of five churches, one in Mosul and the others in Baghdad. While it has been impossible to determine the instigators of violence against Christians in Basra and Baghdad, and no doubt some of the Baghdad kidnapping for ransom is the work of criminal gangs possibly allied to the insurgency, the upsurge in attacks on Christians in the north, on the Nineveh Plains especially, is widely believed to be the work of KDP agents. Kurdish attacks on Christians has a long history, stretching well before WWI and the Hamidiya units of Kurdish irregulars that were largely responsible for the Assyrian genocide in southeastern Turkey and northwest Iran. The current attacks appear to be targeted at Christians in the north of Iraq, on the Nineveh Plains, and the villages to which those fleeing Basra and Baghdad are hoping to return. These internally displaced persons (IDPs), as well as the refugees stranded in Jordan and Syria, need both resettlement funds and security from Kurdish attacks and pressure. Yet the community is currently only supported by funds collected from the diaspora - and in some cases - when the diaspora funds a project, such as electrical generators, Kurdish thugs blow them up. In other instances, the KDP has blockaded Assyrian villages and prevented delivery of food supplies.
( http://www.aina.org/releases/1999/blockade.htm).

Over the past few days alone, a sharply increased pattern of attack on Christians in the north has emerged as gathered from websites (http://www.bethsuryoyo.com/). What is happening in the more isolated villages remaining in Berwari, Aqra and Zakho may be even more deadly.

1. Mosul, Nineveh Province. 8 Sept. Video of real or enacted beheading distributed in Mosul to frighten Assyrians into leaving the area.

"According to residents of Mosul, a group of Islamic terrorists has distributed in the past few days a video CD containing the beheading of two Assyrian Christians from Mosul. To date, the identity of the Assyrian victims is still unknown. Many residents have seen the video and claimed that it was very disturbing."

2. Mosul, Nineveh Province. 8 Sept. Assassination of three women, wounding of another and driver, as they traveled back to home village of Bartilla from Mosul.

"On Tuesday August 31, 2004, Tara Majeed Betros Al-Hadaya, Taghrid Abdul-Massih Ishaq Betros and her sister Hala Abdul-Massih Ishaq Betros, were murdered in Mosul. The three Assyrian victims were returning to their homes in Bartilla, from a hospital in Mosul, where they worked, when their car was attacked by a group of terrorists who opened heavy fire at the car.

The attack took place in the section between the Television area and the Kokajli area on the main road between Mosul and Bartilla. Also injured in the attack was another Assyrian woman, `Amera Nouh Sha`ana who was also going home to Bartilla and the Assyrian driver, Naji Betros Ishaq. The three female victims were in their twenties.

The residents of Bartilla are followers of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the town is the birthplace of His Holiness Mor Ignatius Yacoub III, the late Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church."

3. Mosul, Nineveh Province. 9 Sept. Two Assyrian brothers, both community leaders, are riddled with bullets. Community believes goal of intensified attacks is to terrorize them and force the indigenous people to leave, and thus stop disputing Kurdish claims to Mosul, now being vociferously put forward in Kurdish media.

"On Thursday September 2, 2004, Khaled Boulos (1972-2004) and his brother Hani Boulos (1976-2004), who are known as the sons of Hasina, were murdered in Mosul in the Al-Sa`a district. The deceased Assyrian brothers were known by many Assyrians for their honorable stands in Mosul in defending and assisting other Assyrians. According to eyewitnesses, on September 2, at noon (local Mosul time) in the Al-Mayasa (Al-Sa`a) district, a car carrying a group of armed terrorists pulled by Khaled and Hani Boulos, where the armed terrorists came out of the car and began firing heavily at the two Assyrians, killing them instantly. The two Assyrian brothers worked for a foreign company in Mosul, which the terrorists used as an excuse to murder them. However, the peaceful Assyrians of Mosul believe that the main goal of the intensified attacks on Assyrian Christians is to terrorize the indigenous Assyrians and force them to leave their homeland."

4. Mosul, Nineveh Province. 9 Sept. Assyrian political activist run over by car without plates as terrorists target Christians. Suspected terrorists are considered part of Kurdish plan to empty the region of Assyrians who dispute Kurdish claim to entire north.

"On Wednesday September 1, 2004, during a terrorist attack on the building of the Governorate of Ninawa, Nisan Sliyo Shmoel was injured in his shoulder. Mr. Shmoel was taken immediately to the hospital where he was treated. After treatment, he was released from the hospital that same day, but the terrorists were awaiting his release and targeted him with an unmarked car (not carrying plate numbers), which they used to drive him over in front of the hospital entrance. Mr. Shmoel died immediately.

Martyr Nisan Sliyo Shmoel was 43 years old. He is survived by his wife and 6 children (5 daughters and a son). The oldest of his children is 15 years old. Shortly after the toppling of Saddam Hussein`s regime, Nisan Sliyo Shmoel joined the Assyrian Patriotic Party (Gaba Atranaya Aturaya) to serve his Assyrian people. Mr. Shmoel was also a private in the newly formed Iraqi Army, which he had joined to serve his country."

Eden Naby



posted by Juan @ 9/13/2004 06:02:27 AM

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Portrait of a neo-con

(Posted with permission from the Interhemispheric Resource Center)
Sep 14, 2004
As the United States and the world look back over the events of the past three years, events triggered by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is worth taking a close look at the under secretary of defense for policy, one of the architects of the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq.

Douglas Feith is the No 3 civilian in the George W Bush administration`s Department of Defense (DoD), under Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Under Secretary for Policy Feith had previously served in the administration of the late president Ronald Reagan, starting off as Middle East specialist at the National Security Council (1981-82) and then transferring to the DoD, where he spent two years as staff lawyer for assistant defense secretary Richard Perle. In 1984 Feith advanced to become deputy assistant secretary of defense for negotiations policy. Feith and Perle were among the leading advocates of a policy to build closer US military and diplomatic ties with Turkey and to increase military ties between Turkey and Israel.

Feith left the DoD in mid-1986 to found the Feith & Zell law firm, based initially in Israel, whose clients included major military contractor Northrup Grumman. In 1989, Feith established another company, International Advisors Inc, which provided lobbying services to foreign clients, including Turkey.

Feith`s private business dealings raised eyebrows in Washington. In 1999, his firm Feith & Zell formed an alliance with the Israel-based Zell, Goldberg & Co, which resulted in the creation of the Fandz International Law Group. According to Fandz` website, the law group "has recently established a task force dealing with issues and opportunities relating to the recently ended war with Iraq and is assisting regional construction and logistics firms to collaborate with contractors from the United States and other coalition countries in implementing infrastructure and other reconstruction projects in Iraq." Remarked Washington Post columnist Al Kamen, "Interested parties can reach [Fandz] through its website, at www.fandz.com. Fandz.com? Hmmm. Rings a bell. Oh, yes, that was the website of the Washington law firm of Feith & Zell, PC, as in Douglas Feith [the] under secretary of defense for policy and head of - what else? - reconstruction matters in Iraq. It would be impossible indeed to overestimate how perfect ZGC would be in `assisting American companies in their relations with the United States government in connection with Iraqi reconstruction projects`."
A vocal advocate of US intervention in the Middle East and for the hardline policies of the Likud Party in Israel, Feith has been involved in or overseen the activities of two controversial Pentagon operations - the Defense Policy Board, whose former head Richard Perle resigned after concerns arose about conflicts of interest between his board duties and business dealings, and the Office of Special Plans (OSP), which allegedly misrepresented intelligence on Iraq to support administration policies. Feith`s office not only housed the Office of Special Plans and other special intelligence operations associated with the Near East and South Asia (NESA) office and the Office of Northern Gulf Affairs but also the office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone, who directed military policy on interrogations of the Guantanamo Bay detainees and then arranged for the transfer of the base`s commanding officer, Major-General Geoffrey Miller, to the Abu Ghraib prison in an effort to extract more information from Iraqi prisoners.

Feith and Israel
Feith cannot be described by just one label. He is a longtime militarist, a neo-conservative, and a right-wing Zionist. According to Bob Woodward`s book Plan of Attack, Feith was described by the military commander who led the Iraq invasion, General Tommie Franks, as "the f---ing stupidest guy on the face of the Earth", referring to the bad intelligence fed to the military about Iraq and the extent of possible resistance to a US invasion.

Feith also has a reputation as a prolific writer, having published articles on international law and on foreign and defense policy in the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and The New Republic.

His militarism - and close ties with the military-industrial complex - were evident in his policy work in the Pentagon working with Perle in the 1980s and then part of the Vulcans along with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Richard Cheney in the Bush II administration; his work as a corporate lobbyist in the 1990s for Northrup Grumman along other military contractors; and his prominent role in the Center for Security Policy and in the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). His political orientation is distinctly neo-conservative, as evident in his affiliations with such groups as the Middle East Forum, Center for Security Policy, and Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS).

Feith served as chairman of the board of directors of the Center for Security Policy, a policy institute that promotes higher military budgets, missile defense systems, space weapons programs, and hardline policies in the Middle East and East Asia. CSP was founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney, a fellow neo-con and, like Feith, a former DoD official in the Reagan administration. Feith helped Gaffney organize CSP`s large advisory board, which includes leading neo-cons, arms lobbyists, and the leading congressional members linked to the military-industrial complex. Feith has also served as an adviser to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which aims to foster closer working relationships between the Israeli military, the US military, the Pentagon, and military contractors in both countries.

Feith has supported lobbying efforts aimed at persuading the US to drop out of treaties and arms control agreements. Wrote one journalist in The Nation, "Largely ignored or derided at the time, a 1995 [Center for Security Policy -CSP] memo co-written by Douglas Feith holding that the United States should withdraw from the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty has essentially become policy, as have other CSP reports opposing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the International Criminal Court."

Feith is a self-proclaimed Zionist - not a Labor Zionist but a right-wing Zionist close to the Likud Party and the Zionist Organization of America.

In the 1990s, Feith was an outspoken critic of the Middle East policies of both the Bush and Bill Clinton administrations that he said were based on the faulty "peace now" and "land for peace" policy frameworks. Instead, he called for a "peace through strength" agenda for Israel and the US - invoking a phrase promoted by the neo-conservatives since the mid-1970s, which became the slogan of the Center for Security Policy.

The Middle East Information Center described Feith as an "ideologue with an extreme anti-Arab bias", remarking that "during the Clinton years, Feith continued to oppose any agreement negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians: Oslo, Hebron and Wye". Feith "defined Oslo as `one-sided Israeli concessions, inflated Palestinian expectations, broken Palestinian solemn understandings, Palestinian violence ... and American rewards for Palestinian recalcitrance`."

In 1991, Feith, together with Gaffney, addressed the National Leadership Conference of the State of Israel Organization. In Feith`s view, it was foolish for the US government and Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians over issues of land given that contrasting principles - not differences over occupied lands - fueled the Israeli-Arab conflict. He noted that, even before Israel was established, Western political leaders mistakenly thought that "the vast territories newly made available for the fulfillment of Arab ambitions for independence would make it easier to win acceptance within the region of a Jewish state in Palestine". According to Feith, no matter what they say publicly or at the negotiating table, the Palestinians have always rejected the principle of legitimacy, namely "the legitimacy of Zionist claims to a Jewish National Homeland in the Land of Israel". Criticizing the George H W Bush administration`s attempt to broker a land for peace deal, Feith warned, "If Western statesmen openly recognized the problem as a clash of principles, they would not be able to market hope through the launching of peace initiatives."

In 1997 the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) honored Dalck Feith and Douglas Feith at its annual dinner. It described the Feiths as "noted Jewish philanthropists and pro-Israel activists". The father was awarded the group`s special Centennial Award "for his lifetime of service to Israel and the Jewish people", while Douglas received the "prestigious Louis D Brandeis Award".

Dalck Feith was a militant in Betar, a Zionist youth movement founded by Ze`ev Jabotinsky, an admirer of Italian fascist Benito Mussolini. Betar, whose members wore dark-brown uniforms and spouted militaristic slogans modeled after other fascistic movements, was associated with the Revisionist Movement, which evolved in Poland to become the Herut Party, which later became the Likud Party.

In 1999 Douglas Feith wrote an essay for a book titled The Dangers of a Palestinian State, which was published by ZOA. Also in 1999, Feith spoke to a 150-member ZOA lobbying mission to Congress that called, among other things, for "US action against Palestinian Arab killers of Americans" and for moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The ZOA lobbying group also criticized the Clinton administration for its "refusal to criticize illegal Palestinian Arab construction in Jerusalem and the territories, which is far more extensive than Israeli construction there".

Initially, Feith strongly supported the Benjamin Netanyahu government controlled by the Likud Party. Immediately before Netanyahu took office, Feith in a Washington Times op-ed wrote: "His Likud Party is in general about as radical as our Republican Party. Mr Netanyahu favors diplomatic, defense, and economic policies for Israel similar in principal to the kind of policies that Reaganites favored (and favor) for the United States." In the opinion piece, Feith echoed the Likud position on peace negotiations and occupied territories. According to Feith, "Israel is unlikely over time to retain control over pieces of territory unless its people actually live there. Supporters of settlements reason: If Israelis do not settle an area in the territories, Israel will eventually be forced to relinquish it. If it relinquishes the territories generally, its security will be undermined and peace therefore will not be possible."

Feith wrote that the Likud Party`s policies were guided by the "peace-through-strength principle". Feith took the opportunity of the op-ed to explain that both Israel and the US would benefit from a strong commitment to missile defense. According to Feith, Israel would directly benefit from the installation of a sea-based, wide-area missile defense system, which would supplement Israel`s own national missile defense system that the US helped develop. Noting the symbiosis of US and Israeli interests, Feith wrote that Netanyahu knew that "if he encourages Israel`s friends in Congress to support such programs, he will create much goodwill with the broad-based forces in the United States, led by the top Republicans in Congress, that deem missile defense the gravest US military deficiency". Feith didn`t see fit to mention that, along with Israel, the main beneficiary of such a global missile defense system would be military contractors such as the ones he represented in his law firm, including Northrup Grumman.

Feith is also well known for his participation - along with neo-conservative bigwigs Richard Perle and David Wurmser - in a 1996 study organized by the Israel-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, which urged scrapping the then-ongoing peace process. The study, titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", advised prime minister-elect Netanyahu "to work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll back" regional threats, help overthrow Saddam Hussein, and strike "Syrian military targets in Lebanon" and possibly in Syria proper.

Three of the six authors of the report - Perle (who was IASPS team leader), Wurmser and Feith - helped set the Middle East strategy, including strong support for current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon`s hardline policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the Bush II administration. Perle chaired the DoD`s Defense Policy Board, Feith became under secretary of defense for policy, and Wurmser became Vice President Cheney`s top Middle East adviser after leaving the State Department, where he had worked under Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton.

Other members of the IASPS study group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" included James Colbert of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), and Jonathan Torop of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a neo-conservative think-tank founded by a director of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). At the time the report was published, Wurmser was an associate of IASPS.

As guiding principles for a new framework of Israeli-US policy in the Middle East, the report advocated that the new Likud government do the following:
# Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self-defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Yasser Arafat`s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.
# Forge a new basis for relations with the US - stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West.
# Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform.

By 1997, Feith and other right-wing Zionists in the US were expressing their disappointment that the Netanyahu government had not "dismantled the Oslo process", as Feith wrote in Commentary, the neo-conservative magazine of the American Jewish Committee. Feith then proceeded to outline a radical break with what he characterized as the "peace now" framework of negotiations. Instead, Feith recommended that Netanyahu fulfill his "peace through strength" campaign promise. "Repudiating Oslo would compel Israel, first and foremost, to undo the grossest of the errors inherent in the accords: the arming of scores of thousands of PA [Palestinian Authority] `policemen`." Feith asserted that the "PA`s security force has succeeded primarily in aggravating Israel`s terrorism problem". What is more, Feith argued for Israel "to deflate expectations of imminent peace" and to "preach sobriety and defense". It was not until a new Likud government was formed under Sharon and when Feith and other Zionists such as Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams and Michael Rubin, together with militarists such as Rumsfeld and Cheney, took over control of Middle East policy during the Bush II administration that Israel, supported by the US, made a "clean break" from the Oslo framework.

Typical of other neo-conservatives, Feith in public statements has not made reference to his own Zionist convictions. Rather in congressional testimony and in op-eds in major media, Feith has instead argued that US policy in the Middle East should be guided by concerns about human rights and democracy. Israel, according to Feith, should never enter into good-faith negotiations with Arab countries or the PA because they are not democratic. Moreover, human-rights violations in Syria, Iran and Iraq justify aggressive US and Israeli policies aimed at ousting undemocratic and repressive regimes. Israeli occupations are justified in the name of ensuring the national security of democratic Israel.

Intelligence operations and scandals
Feith is no stranger to intelligence scandals. In 1982 he left the National Security Council under the shadow of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) probe of Reagan administration officials suspected of passing intelligence information to Israel. During the Bush II administration, investigative reports by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker focused public attention on the Office of Special Plans that came under Feith`s supervision.

In the days after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Feith and Wolfowitz started cooking intelligence to meet the needs of the radically new foreign and military policy that included regime change in Iraq as its top priority.

One might have thought that the priority for a special intelligence would have been to determine the whereabouts of the terrorist network that had just attacked the homeland. But Wolfowitz and Feith, working closely with Rumsfeld and Cheney, had other intelligence priorities. This loosely organized team soon became the Office of Special Plans directed by Abram Shulksy, formerly of RAND and the National Strategy Information Center (NSIC). The objective of this closet intelligence team, according to Rumsfeld, was to "search for information on Iraq`s hostile intentions or links to terrorists". OSP`s mission was to create intelligence that the Pentagon and vice president could use to press their case for an Iraq invasion with the president and Congress.

About the same time, the Pentagon took the first steps toward launching a counterintelligence operation called the Office of Strategic Intelligence to support the emerging security doctrine of preventive war. But this shadowy office, whose very purpose was to create propaganda and to counter information coming out of Iraq, was quickly disbanded. Congressional members expressed their concern that a counterintelligence office would not limit itself to discrediting the intelligence of US adversaries. Such a secret counterintelligence office, critics warned, either intentionally or inadvertently might spread disinformation to the US public and policy community as part of the buildup to the planned invasion.

Feith oversaw these efforts to provide the type of "strategic intelligence" needed to drive this policy agenda. As the Pentagon`s top policy official in Middle East affairs, Feith had oversight authority of the DoD`s Near East and South Asia bureau (NESA). That office came under the direct supervision of William Luti, a retired navy officer who is a Newt Gingrich protege and who has long advocated a US military invasion of Iraq.

The OSP worked closely with Ahmad Chalabi and others from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an expatriate group promoted by the neo-conservatives to replace the Saddam regime once US troops were in Baghdad. Chalabi assured the Pentagon that a US invasion would be supported by widespread Iraqi resistance, leading to claims by top administration officials and neo-con pundits that the invasion would be a "cakewalk". The OSP also relied on intelligence flows about Iraq from a rump unit established in the offices of Sharon - who like Chalabi was a proponent of a US military invasion and had close relations with neo-cons such as Wolfowitz and Feith.
Feith became embroiled in a new intelligence scandal in late August when it was reported that the FBI had for the past two years been investigating intelligence leaks to Israel from the Pentagon. The Pentagon official named in the media reports is Lawrence Franklin, who was brought into the Office of Special Plans from the Defense Intelligence Agency. Franklin, who had served in the military attache`s office in the US Embassy in Tel Aviv in the late 1990s as a colonel in the Air Force Reserve, is suspected of passing classified information about Iran to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and Israel. Fellow neo-con and Franklin`s friend Michael Ledeen called the allegations against Franklin "nonsensical". The FBI is also investigating whether Franklin and other DoD officials passed classified information to Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. According to one neo-con interviewed by the Washington Post, "This is part of a civil war with the administration, a basic dislike between the old CIA and the neo-conservatives."

This article is used by permission of the Interhemispheric Resource Center (all rights reserved). It first appeared on Rightweb.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Why Americans love George W Bush
By Spengler

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

George W Bush almost certainly will win another term as president of the United States, as I have predicted all along (Careful what you Bush for, August 3). That surprises outside observers of US politics, who can see that the Democrats are cleverer, better dressed and better looking. It is just the sort of Americans who know they are neither clever nor good-looking who will vote for Bush.

Bush supporters are the sort of American one never meets. Through the media as well as through personal contact, Asians and Europeans meet the United States in the person of its coastal elite: academics, journalists, clerics, entertainers, and the technological avant garde. The sort of American traveler one meets in Hong Kong, Singapore or Bangkok probably will vote for John Kerry in November. Fewer than one in six Americans owns a passport, and those are found disproportionately on the US coasts, colored Democratic blue on the electoral maps. The elite enjoys the frisson of cultural difference and will travel thousands of miles to patronize quaint foreign cultures. By contrast, provincials from the inland states (colored Republican red on the electoral maps) take their holidays in Las Vegas or Disney World. For them the gambling-casino replicas of the Eiffel Tower or the Venetian canals are just like the real thing but without the inconvenience of strange tongues and customs.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
Bush voters really do look worse (obesity is an inland disease in the US), dress worse, and are less likely to have attended a university than Kerry voters. But Bush voters are the sort of people who believe in their heart of hearts that America was founded to protect the likes of them - unlikely the clever and attractive people who can fend quite well for themselves. That is the source of their patriotism.

Outside the United States, Senator John F Kerry reportedly enjoys a 5-1 preference over President Bush (If the world could vote, it`s Kerry in a landslide, by Jim Lobe, September 10). That emphasizes how great a gulf separates Americans from the rest of the world.

Political tourists who wish to understand the United States should seek out a medium-sized city somewhere in the country`s interior, the sort of place no tourist ever would visit, and attend its Fourth of July festivities. There they will encounter a passion for country unknown on the other side of the Atlantic, and unimaginable in the Southern Hemisphere. Government, in the experience of the peoples of the world, has been an instrument by which the wealthy and powerful oppressed the weak. The passionate patriotism of ordinary Americans springs from their conviction that the American state is the shield of common folk.

To Europeans, patriotism implies a near-racialist nationalism of the sort that sent hordes of soldiers to butcher their fellows during the two World Wars of the last century. American patriotism belongs to a different species. Governments, in the experience of most of the peoples of the world, exist to help the rich and powerful oppress the weak and helpless. Whenever the representatives of the weak have taken power, they turned into oppressors. Europeans never have loved their governments; love of country means love of one`s race and culture, the narcissistic self-worship of tribalism.

The United States, by contrast, is populated by the descendants of individuals who decided to cease to be Europeans (or whatever) so that no one would be able to push them around. That is why Americans own guns. By some accounts the number of guns in circulation exceeds the number of Americans. Americans do not use their guns, contrary to popular myth. If the violent behavior of certain minority groups is excluded, Americans commit the same proportion of violent crimes as do Europeans. But an armed population will accept only so much abuse. Gun control, by the same token, is a liberal obsession (the Drudge Report observed that Kerry sponsored legislation that would have banned the make of shotgun that he accepted as a gift from trade-union supporters in Pennsylvania).

Among such people, the president`s simple message resonates mightily. Two World Wars taught Europeans that there is no good or evil, only the insidious jealousies of contending peoples. God therefore is on no one`s side, and the alternative to mutual butchery is negotiated compromise. Senator Kerry and the US coastal elite believe the same thing, namely that enlightened specialists can interrupt the tragic destiny of peoples and save the world from itself.
That is an alien intrusion upon the American world view, which began, almost biblically, by separating good and evil. The oppressive English monarchy was evil, while the self-governing English colonies were good; slavery was evil, while the system of free labor was good; what immigrants left behind in the old country was evil, and what they found on American shores was good. Nazism was evil, democracy was good; the Soviet Union was evil, while America was good.

Attacking President Bush for his failure to win European support for his Iraq venture may be the stupidest idea ever advanced by a major-party presidential candidate in a US election. Jokes about French cowardice were standard in the American repertoire for half a century before the US invasion of Iraq. "What`s the salute of the French army?" (Raise both hands in token of surrender.)

After the end of the Cold War America`s strategic interest in Europe withered away. As Muslim immigrants replace the infertile Europeans over time, European and US interests will diverge. It is meaningless to speak of America`s "European allies" at this juncture. It is much more likely that the Europeans will become America`s enemies a generation from now as Muslims emerge as a new majority.

Once attacked, Americans want to fight back. George W Bush may have attacked the wrong country (which I do not believe), and he may have mistaken the US mission after the initial fighting was over (which I do believe), but Americans are quite willing to forgive him. They understand that it is hard to track down and destroy a shadowy enemy, and do not mind much if the United States has to trounce a few countries before finding the right ones.

The attractive, witty and affluent elite who support John Kerry cannot bear the idea that the overweight, dull and impecunious commoners of Middle America will give Bush a second term. I am reminded of the fictional Franz Liebkind in Mel Brooks` 1968 movie The Producers. Brooks` slapstick Nazi complains, "Hitler was a better dancer than Churchill; Hitler was a better dresser than Churchill; Hitler was a better painter than Churchill: he could paint a whole apartment in one afternoon, two coats."

As for the other countries of the world, it is an inconvenience that George W Bush will pursue the "war on terror" to its bitter end, namely civilization war. It doesn`t matter. They don`t vote. My advice: suck it up and prepare for the second Bush administration.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact [e-mail] for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Bush on the Couch

By Justin Frank

Dr. Frank is the author of Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President (2004). He is a Washington, D.C.–based psychoanalyst and professor of psychiatry at George Washington University Medical School.

09/13/04 "History News Network" -- If one of my patients frequently said one thing and did another, I would want to know why. If I found that he often used words that hid their true meaning, and affected a persona that obscured the nature of his actions, I would grow more concerned. If he presented an inflexible worldview characterized by an oversimplified distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, allies and enemies, I would question his ability to grasp reality. And if his actions revealed an unacknowledged – even sadistic – indifference to human suffering, wrapped in pious claims of compassion, I would worry about the safety of the people whose lives he touched.

For the last three years, I have observed with increasing alarm the inconsistencies and denials of such an individual. But he is not one of my patients. He is our President. He wants to remain our President for four more years, and he intends to do so on his own terms. On August 27, the eve of the Republican Convention, Bush said to New York Times reporters Sanger and Bumiller that “he would resist going ‘on the couch’ to rethink decisions.”

Since the Swift Boat controversy hit center stage in mid-August – both the ads and Bush’s refusal to take responsibility for them – we again see his reluctance to examine his conscience. Instead he remains mired in his long-standing pattern of denial and blame. Responsibility is something this president flees at all costs. It is a behavior pattern that began long before Bush became president, governor, or even a college student. It even began before Bush had become an alcoholic (he finally stopped drinking at age forty, with the help of his religion), though his response to criticism is typical of untreated alcoholics.

Bush was the first born child to a family that had long and moneyed traditions on both sides. When he was three and a half his sister Robin was born. It has been said that the nursery rhyme “Humpty Dumpty” was written with the first-born child in mind. It seems to capture perfectly the irrevocable trauma felt with the second child is born: Nothing can put the first-born back together again. Of course, first-born offspring find different ways to manage this insult. Some can be suspicious and overly competitive; others can be overtly nice while covertly furious; still others always keep an eye on the second child, making sure he doesn’t get too much. First-born children keep careful track of how much food mother gives to their siblings.

But if the second-born dies, as Robin did when George was seven, then an entirely new and complex dynamic is set in motion. The first-born often has to disown his destructive fantasies and banish them into his unconscious. But such fantasies threaten his mental equilibrium and he has to do something with them. One solution is to project them outward, thereby experiencing people around him as destructive or a source of danger.

By the time Robin died Bush already had a mother who was emotionally elsewhere. Children resent it when the mother is absent, and Bush’s resentment would have grown stronger in the face of his mother’s grief after Robin’s death. If George’s feelings were never addressed – and it is clear from numerous family accounts that the parents didn’t have a funeral and never talked to George about the loss – his natural animosity toward his sister would have remained unresolved; he would have been left with a host of forbidden feelings that were too threatening to acknowledge, only furthering the process of having to disavow these unwanted aspects of himself. He was deprived of the opportunity to learn to mourn, to heal. In that deprivation lays the kernel of what has by now become Bush’s knee-jerk reaction of denying responsibility for anything that goes wrong. He can’t allow it to be his fault.

It is true that blame and denial are arguably as typical of politicians as of alcoholics, though the latter are generally more likely to involve family members in the process. But blame is also a reminder of one’s destructive impulse; the individual who hasn’t resolved his anxieties surrounding that impulse is particularly motivated to avoid confronting those anxieties, which he can accomplish by shifting responsibility to someone else, or denying it outright. Drinkers turn to alcohol to suppress anxiety.

The untreated alcoholic who has simply stopped drinking treats anxiety as an enemy, and with good reason: He is often more challenged by anxiety because he has lost his time-tested means of numbing its sting. He knows that anxiety is a threat to his abstinence – he fears anything that might lead him back to the bottle – but his years of drinking get in the way of learning other methods to manage uncomfortable feelings. Bush manages his anxiety through his inflexible daily routines – the famously short meetings, sacrosanct exercise schedule, daily Bible readings, and limited office hours. All public appearances are controlled and staged – even the ones that appear to be spontaneous. They have to be.

But when routines fail, denial kicks in as the treatment of choice to manage the potential development of internal chaos. The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush’s personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat; when Jay Leno, on the eve of Bush’s DUI revelation (just a week before the 2000 election), asked him if he’d ever done anything he was ashamed of, he replied, “I didn’t” – and proceeded to tell a humiliating story of his brother Marvin urinating in the family steam iron. Fast forward to the Swift Boat ads, taking a brief stop at his denial that he knew Ken Lay (“Kenny who?”) of Enron who was in fact a friend and major contributor to his campaigns; then to his blaming 9-11 for the failing economy when the market actually began to crash after he announced his tax cut plans; then to his inability to admit to any mistake he made after 9-11 (in the April 2004 press conference he couldn’t bring himself to accept even a modicum of responsibility for either the intelligence failures before 9-11 or for the war in Iraq), to his denial in May of knowing Iraqi information source Chalabi despite having invited him to sit just behind the First Lady at his 2004 State of the Union Address. Putting it all together, we see a pattern that I call the KWD – the Kenny Who Defense. He employs it whenever and wherever he can, whenever he feels threatened.

All his disavowed destructiveness coalesces and requires management whenever anybody challenges him. He becomes instantly wary: Questions mobilize his anxiety and invite that exaggerated degree of rigidity he uses for self-protection. It is not a matter of intelligence per se, but a matter of paralysis when confronted with any question that requires thinking. When there is nobody in particular to blame he stumbles anyway, as he did at the Unity Conference on August 6 when asked to discuss the sovereignty of the Native American tribes. Mark Trahant, of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, noted that children study city, county, state and federal government but that Indian government is not part of that structure. In noting Bush’s unique experience as governor and president, he asked about Bush’s understanding of sovereignty and how to think about tribal conflicts in the twenty-first century. Bush hesitated, and then said, “Sovereignty means [pause] that you’re a sovereign – that you’ve been given sovereignty and can be viewed as a sovereign entity. Therefore the relationship between Government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.”

His relationship to his father makes all the more sense in light of the anxieties I have described. First, his father cast a giant shadow: he was a good student, a fine athlete, a war hero, a successful businessman. One grows up in awe of such a father – and given this particular son’s need already to disown his own feelings of destructiveness, he imbues his father – partly by projecting his own aggression onto the father – as a man of enormous power, making him more of a threat. And young George W. had few of his father’s qualities with which to defend himself. Being a cheerleader and a big fraternity drinker are just not the same thing. This situation can make a son feel rage, frustration, and shame.

One way Bush managed his feelings was through his humor, his sarcasm (not unlike his mother), and his need to be in charge of any undertaking. At times, being in charge meant mocking his father’s power (being stick-ball commissioner while his father had been an All-American first baseman is a good example). One particular power that George Sr. did not express, however, was the important paternal responsibility to help a son separate from his mother. I doubt the success of that endeavor with George Jr., as his father was absent for most of Bush’s childhood. And when he was present, George Sr. was absently reading or distant.

This particular son is driven by the need to retaliate – against his father and against a world full of enemies. He does so in a variety of ways – though the underlying motives are the same. He tells Bob Woodward that he needn’t consult his father before invading Iraq because he consults a stronger higher father; he regularly introduces Vice President Cheney as the greatest vice president in history, without mentioning that his father was VP for eight years; he dismantles international coalitions once valued by his father; he practices what his father called “voodoo economics” by implementing massive tax cuts for the rich, maintaining that deficit spending will revive the economy; and at the Republican Convention in New York, he doesn’t make a place for his own father – an actual ex-president – to speak. Each event taken on its face value is but an incident. When they are linked together they reveal a distinct pattern.

His drive to manage anxiety is paramount. That requires him to shift responsibility whenever possible. He can consciously deny blaming his father for having failed him in his time of greatest need as a child – in helping him both stand up to his mother and to let go of his need to be her cheerleader rescuing her from her unspoken grief. But unconsciously, the blame persists – crippling his ability to think. He remains a cheerleader, not a leader. The inability to take responsibility makes Bush genuinely unable to lead: he can bully others and seem to act decisively, but he retreats from threatened confrontation (he says “bring em on” only when embedded behind the Secret Service thousands of miles away from the battle). His need to remain in control makes him unable to think things through in order to lead from strength. His is a stage-managed strength, something we saw all too clearly during the week of the Republican Convention.

Copyright: History News Network

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Bush ist das kleinere Übel. Interessante Überlegung?

September 13, 2004
Why Bush May Well Be The Lesser Evil
Elections, Alliances and Empire

By GABRIEL KOLKO

[This essay by historian Gabriel Kolko is excerpted from CounterPunch`s must-have new book, Dime`s Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, now available from CounterPunch/AK Press.]

Alliances have been a major cause of wars throughout modern history, removing inhibitions that might otherwise have caused Germany, France and countless nations to reflect much more cautiously before embarking on death and destruction. The dissolution of all alliances is a crucial precondition of a world without wars.

The United States` strength, to an important extent, has rested on its ability to convince other nations that it was to their vital interests to see America prevail in its global role. With the loss of that ability there will be a fundamental change in the international system, a change whose implications and consequences may ultimately be as far-reaching as the dissolution of the Soviet bloc. The scope of America`s world role is now far more dangerous and ambitious than when Communism existed, but it was fear of the USSR that alone gave NATO its raison d`etre and provided Washington with the justification for its global pretensions. Enemies have disappeared and new ones--many once former allies and congenial states--have taken their places. The United States, to a degree to which it is itself uncertain of, needs alliances. But even friendly nations are less likely than ever to be bound into complaisant "coalitions of the willing`.

Nothing in President Bush`s extraordinarily vague doctrine, promulgated on September 19, 2002, of fighting "preemptive" wars, unilaterally if necessary, was a fundamentally new departure. Since the 1890s, regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats were in office, the U.S. has intervened in countless ways--sending in the Marines, installing and bolstering friendly tyrants--in the western hemisphere to determine the political destinies of innumerable southern nations. The Democratic Administration that established the United Nations explicitly regarded the hemisphere as the U.S. sphere of influence, and at the same time created the IMF and World Bank to police the world economy.

Indeed, it was the Democratic Party that created most of the pillars of postwar American foreign policy, from the Truman Doctrine in 1947 and NATO through the institutionalization of the arms race and the core illusion that weapons and firepower are a solution to many of the world`s political problems. So the Democrats share, in the name of a truly "bipartisan" consensus, equal responsibility for both the character and dilemmas of America`s foreign strategy today. President Jimmy Carter initiated the Afghanistan adventure in July 1979, hoping to bog down the Soviets there as the Americans had been in Vietnam. And it was Carter who first encouraged Saddam Hussein to confront Iranian fundamentalism, a policy President Reagan continued.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
In his 2003 book The Roaring Nineties Joseph E. Stiglitz, chairman of the President`s Council of Economic Advisers from 1993 to 1997, argues that the Clinton Administration intensified the "hegemonic legacy" in the world economy, and Bush is just following along. The 1990s, Stiglitz writes, was "A decade of unparalleled American influence over the global economy" that Democratic financiers and fiscal conservatives in key posts defined, "in which one economic crisis seemed to follow another." The U.S. created trade barriers and gave large subsidies to its own agribusiness but countries in financial straits were advised and often compelled to cut spending and "adopt policies that were markedly different from those that we ourselves had adopted." The scale of domestic and global peculation by the Clinton and Bush administrations can be debated but they were enormous in both cases. In foreign and military affairs, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have suffered from the same procurement fetish, believing that expensive weapons are superior to realistic political strategies. The same illusions produced the Vietnam War--and disaster. Elegant strategies promising technological routes to victory have been with us since the late 1940s, but they are essentially public relations exercises intended to encourage more orders for arms manufacturers, justifications for bigger budgets for the rival military services. During the Clinton years the Pentagon continued to concoct grandiose strategies, demanding--and getting--new weapons to implement them. There are many ways to measure defense expenditures over time but--minor annual fluctuations notwithstanding--the consensus between the two parties on the Pentagon`s budgets has flourished since 1945. In January 2000 Clinton added $115 billion to the Pentagon`s five-year plan, far more than the Republicans were calling for. When Clinton left office the Pentagon had over a half trillion dollars in the major weapons procurement pipeline, not counting the ballistic missile defense systems, a pure boondoggle that cost over $71 billion by 1999. The dilemma, as both CIA and senior Clinton officials correctly warned, was that terrorists were more likely to strike the American homeland than some nation against which the military could retaliate. This fundamental disparity between hardware and reality has always existed and September 11, 2001 showed how vulnerable and weak the U.S. has become, a theme readers can explore in my book, Another Century of War?

The war in Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 brought to a head the future of NATO and the alliance, and especially Washington`s deepening anxiety regarding Germany`s possible independent role in Europe. Well before Bush took office, the Clinton Administration resolved never again to allow its allies to inhibit or define its strategy. Bush`s policies, notwithstanding the brutal way in which they have been expressed or implemented, follow directly and logically from this crucial decision. NATO members` refusal to contribute the soldiers and equipment essential to end warlordism and allow fair elections to be held in Afghanistan (it sent five times as many troops to Kosovo in 1999), is the logic of America`s bipartisan disdain for the alliance.

But the world today is increasingly dangerous for the U. S. and communism`s demise has called into fundamental question the core premises of the post-1945 alliance system. More nations have nuclear weapons and means of delivering them; destructive small arms are much more abundant (thanks to swelling American arms exports which grew from 32 percent of the world trade in 1987 to 43 percent in 1997); there are more local and civil wars than ever, especially in regions like Eastern Europe which had not experienced any for nearly a half-century; and there is terrorism--the poor and weak man`s ultimate weapon--on a scale that has never existed. The political, economic, and cultural causes of instability and conflict are growing, and expensive weapons are irrelevant--save to the balance sheets of those who make them.

So long as the future is to a large degree--to paraphrase Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--"unknowable", it is not in the national interest of America`s traditional allies to perpetuate the relationships created from 1945 to 1990. Through ineptness and a vague ideology of American power that acknowledges no limits on its global ambitions, the Bush Administration has lunged into unilateralist initiatives and adventurism that discount consultations with its friends, much less the United Nations. The outcome has been serious erosion of the alliance system upon which U.S. foreign policy from 1947 onwards was based. With the proliferation of destructive weaponry and growing political instability, the world is becoming increasingly dangerous--and so is membership in alliances.

If Bush is reelected then the international order may be very different in 2008 than it is today, let alone 1999. Regardless of who is the next president, there is no reason to believe that objective assessments of the costs and consequences of its actions will significantly alter America`s foreign policy priorities over the next four years. If the Democrats win they will attempt, in the name of "progressive internationalism", to reconstruct the alliance system as it existed before the Yugoslav war of 1999, when the Clinton Administration turned against the veto powers built into NATO`s structure. There is important bipartisan support for resurrecting the Atlanticism that Bush is in the process of smashing, and it was best reflected in the Council on Foreign Relations` banal March 2004 report on the "transatlantic alliance", which Henry Kissinger helped direct and which both influential Republicans and Wall Street leaders endorsed. Traditional elites are desperate to see NATO and the Atlantic system restored to their old glory. Their vision, premised on the expansionist assumptions that have guided American foreign policy since 1945, was best articulated the same month in a book, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Carter`s National Security adviser. Brzezinski rejects the Bush Administration`s counterproductive rhetoric that so alienates former and potential future allies. But he regards American power as central to stability in every part of world and his global vision no less ambitious than the Bush Administration`s. He is for the U.S. maintaining "a comprehensive technological edge over all potential rivals" and calls for the transformation of "America`s prevailing power into a co-optive hegemony--one in which leadership is exercised more through shared conviction with enduring allies than by assertive domination". Precisely because it is much more salable to past and potential allies, this traditional Democratic vision is far more dangerous than that of the inept, eccentric melange now guiding American foreign policy.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
But vice-president Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the neoconservatives and eclectic hawks in Bush`s administration are oblivious to the consequences of their recommendations or to the way they shock America`s overseas friends. Many of the President`s key advisers possess aggressive, essentially academic geopolitical visions that assume overwhelming American military and economic power. Eccentric interpretations of Holy Scripture inspire yet others, including Bush himself. Most of these crusaders employ an amorphous nationalist AND MESSIANIC rhetoric that makes it impossible to predict exactly how Bush will mediate between very diverse, often quirky influences, though thus far he has favored advocates of wanton use of American military might throughout the world. No one close to the President acknowledges the limits of its power--limits that are political and, as Korea and Vietnam proved, military too.

Kerry voted for many of Bush`s key foreign and domestic measures and he is, at best, an indifferent candidate. His statements and interviews over the past months dealing with foreign affairs have mostly been both vague and incoherent, though he is explicitly and ardently pro-Israel and explicitly for regime-change in Venezuela. His policies on the Middle East are identical to Bush`s and this alone will prevent the alliance with Europe from being reconstructed. On Iraq, even as violence there escalated and Kerry finally had a crucial issue with which to win the election, his position has been indistinguishable from the President`s. "Until" an Iraqi armed force can replace it, Kerry wrote in the April 13 Washington Post, the American military has to stay in Iraq--"preferably helped by NATO." "No matter who is elected president in November, we will perservere in that mission" to build a stable, pluralistic Iraq--which, I must add, has never existed and is unlikely to emerge in the foreseeable future. "It is a matter of national honor and trust." He has promised to leave American troops in Iraq for his entire first term if necessary, but he is vague about their subsequent departure. Not even the scandal over the treatment of Iraqi prisoners evoked Kerry`s criticism despite the fact it has profoundly alienated a politically decisive segment of the American public.

His statements on domestic policy in favor of fiscal restraint and lower deficits, much less tax breaks for large corporations, are utterly lacking in voter appeal. Kerry is packaging himself as an economic conservative who is also strong on defense spending--a Clinton clone--because that is precisely how he feels. His advisers are the same investment bankers who helped Clinton get the nomination in 1992 and then raised the funds to help him get elected and then defined his economic policy. The most important of them is Robert Rubin, who became Treasury secretary, and he and his cronies are running the Kerry campaign and will also dictate his economic agenda should he win. These are the same men whom Stiglitz attacks as advocates of the rich and powerful.

Kerry is, to his core, an ambitious patrician educated in elite schools and anything but a populist. He is neither articulate nor impressive as a candidate or as someone who is able to formulate an alternative to Bush`s foreign and defense policies which themselves still have far more in common with Clinton`s than they have differences. To be critical of Bush is scarcely justification for wishful thinking about Kerry, although every presidential election produces such illusions. Although the foreign and military policy goals of the Democrats and Republicans since 1947 have been essentially consensual, both in terms of objectives and the varied means--from covert to overt warfare--of attaining them, there have been significant differences in the way they were expressed. This was far less the case with Republican presidents and presidential candidates for most of the twentieth century, and men like Taft, Hoover, Eisenhower, or Nixon were very sedate by comparison to Reagan or the present rulers in Washington. But style can be important and inadvertently, the Bush administration`s falsehoods, rudeness, and preemptory demands have begun to destroy an alliance system that for the world`s peace should have been abolished long ago. In this context, it is far more likely that the nations allied with the U. S. in the past will be compelled to stress their own interests and go their own ways. The Democrats are far less likely to continue that exceedingly desirable process, a process ultimately much more condusive to peace in the world. They will perpetuate the same adventurism and opportunism that began generations ago and that Bush has merely built upon, the same dependence on military means to solve political crises, the same interference with every corner of the globe as if America has a divinely ordained mission to muck around with all the world`s problems. The Democrats` greater finesse in justifying these policies is therefore more dangerous because they will be made to seem more credible and keep alive alliances that only reinforce the U.S.` refusal to acknowledge the limits of its power. In the longer run, Kerry`s pursuit of these aggressive goals will lead eventually to a renewal of the dissolution of alliances, but in the short-run he will attempt to rebuild them and European leaders will find it considerably more difficult to refuse his demands than if Bush stays in power--and that is to be deplored.

The Stakes For The World

Critics of American foreign policy will not rule Washington after this election regardless of who wins. As dangerous as he is, Bush`s reelection is much more likely to produce the continued destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to American power in the long run. Facts in no way imply moral judgments if we merely identify them. One does not have to believe that "worse is better" but we have to consider candidly the foreign policy consequences of a renewal of Bush`s mandate, not the least because it is likely.

Bush`s policies have managed to alienate innumerable nations. Even America`s firmest allies--such as Britain, Australia, and Canada--are compelled to ask themselves if issuance of blank checks to Washington is in their national interest or if it undermines the tenure of parties in power. Foreign affairs, as the terrorism in Madrid dramatically showed in March, are too explosively volatile to permit uncritical endorsement of American policies and parties in power can pay dearly, as in Spain, where the people were always overwhelmingly opposed to entering the war and the ruling party snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. More important, in terms of cost and price, are the innumerable victims among the people. The nations that have supported the Iraq war enthusiastically, particularly Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, and Australia, have made their populations especially vulnerable to terrorism. They now have the expensive responsibility of trying to protect them.

The Washington-based Pew Research Center report on public opinion released on March 16, 2004 showed that a large and rapidly increasing majority of the French, Germans, and even British want an independent European foreign policy, reaching 75 percent in France in March 2004 compared to 60 percent two years earlier. The U.S. "favorability rating" plunged to 38 percent in France and Germany. But even in Britain it fell from 75 to 58 percent and the proportion of Britain`s population who supported the decision to go to war in Iraq dropped from 61 percent in May 2003 to 43 percent in March 2004. Blair`s domestic credibility, after the Labour Party placed third in the June 10 local and European elections, is at its nadir. Right after the political debacle in Spain the president of Poland, where a growing majority of the people has always been opposed to sending troops to Iraq or keeping them there, complained that Washington "misled" him on Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction and hinted that Poland might withdraw its 2,400 troops from Iraq earlier than previously scheduled. In Italy, by last May 71 percent of the people favored withdrawing the 2,700 Italian troops in Iraq no later than June 30, and leaders of the main opposition have already declared they will withdraw them if they win the spring 2006 elections--a promise they and other antiwar parties in Britain and Spain used in the mid-June European Parliament elections to increase significantly their power. The issue now is whether nations like Poland, Italy, or The Netherlands can afford to isolate themselves from the major European powers and their own public opinion to remain a part of the increasingly quixotic and unilateralist American-led "coalition of the willing". The political liabilities of remaining staying close to Washington are obvious, the advantages non-existent.

What has happened in Spain is a harbinger of the future, further isolating the American government in its adventures. Four more nations of the 30-some members of the "coalition of the willing" have already withdrawn their troops, and the Ukraine--with its 1,600 soldiers--will soon follow suit. The Bush Administration sought to unite nations behind the Iraq War with a gargantuan lie--that Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" --and failed spectacularly. Meanwhile, terrorism is more robust than ever and its arguments have far more credibility in the Muslim world. The Iraq War energized Al Qaeda and has tied down America, dividing its alliances as never before. Conflict in Iraq may escalate, as it has since March, creating a protracted armed conflict with Shiites and Sunnis that could last many months, even years. Will the nations that have sent troops there keep them there indefinitely, as Washington is increasingly likely to ask them to do? Can the political leaders afford concession to insatiable American demands?

Elsewhere, Washington opposes the major European nations on Iran, in part because the neoconservatives and realists within its own ranks are deeply divided, and the same is true of its relations with Japan, South Korea, and China on how to deal with North Korea. America`s effort to assert its moral and ideological superiority, crucial elements in its postwar hegemony, is failing--badly.

America`s justification for its attack on Iraq compelled France and Germany to become far more independent on foreign policy, far earlier, than they had intended or were prepared to do. In a way that was inconceivable two years ago NATO`s future role is now being questioned. Europe`s future defense arrangements are today an open question but there will be some sort of European military force independent of NATO and American control. Germany and France strongly oppose the Bush doctrine of preemption. Tony Blair, however much he intends to continue acting as a proxy for the U.S. on military questions, must return Britain to the European project, and his willingness since late 2003 to emphasize his nation`s role in Europe reflects political necessities. To do otherwise is to alienate his increasingly powerful neighbors and risk losing elections.

Even more dangerous, the Bush Administration has managed to turn what was in the mid-1990s a blossoming cordial friendship with the former Soviet Union into an increasingly tense relationship. Despite a 1997 non-binding American pledge not to station substantial numbers of combat troops in the territories of new members, NATO last March incorporated seven East European nations and is now on Russia`s very borders and Washington is in the process of establishing an undetermined but significant number of bases in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russia has stated repeatedly that U.S. encirclement requires that it remain a military superpower and modernize its delivery systems so that it will be more than a match for the increasingly expensive and ambitious missile defense system and space weapons the Pentagon is now building. It has 5,286 nuclear warheads and 2,922 intercontinental missiles to deliver them. We now see a dangerous and costly renewal of the arms race.

Because it regards America`s ambitions in the former Soviet bloc as provocation, Russia threatened in February of this year to pull out of the crucial Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, which has yet to come into force. "I would like to remind the representatives of [NATO]", Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told a security conference in Munich last February, "that with its expansion they are beginning to operate in the zone of vitally important interests of our country." By dint of its increasingly unilateral rampages, without U.N. authority, where Russia`s veto power on the Security Council is, in Ivanov`s wistful words-- one of the "major factors for ensuring global stability", the U.S. has made international relations "very dangerous." (See Wade Boese, "Russia, NATO at Loggerheads Over Military Bases," Arms Control Today, March 2004; Los Angeles Times, March 26, 2004. ) The question Washington`s allies will ask themselves is whether their traditional alliances have far more risks than benefits--and if they are now necessary.

In the case of China, Bush`s key advisers publicly assigned the highest priority to confronting its burgeoning military and geopolitical power the moment they came to office. But China`s military budget is growing rapidly--12 per cent this coming year--and the European Union wants to lift its 15-year old arms embargo and get a share of the enticingly large market. The Bush Administration, of course, is strongly resisting any relaxation of the export ban. Establishing bases on China`s western borders is the logic of its ambitions.

By installing bases in small or weak Eastern European and Central Asian nations the United States is not so much engaged in "power projection" against an amorphously defined terrorism as again confronting Russia and China in an open-ended context. Such confrontations may have profoundly serious and protracted consequences neither America`s allies nor its own people have any inclination to support. Even some Pentagon analysts (see for example, Dr. Stephen J. Blank`s "Toward a New U.S. Strategy in Asia," U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, February 24, 2004) have warned against this strategy because any American attempt to save failed states in the Caucasus or Central Asia, implicit in its new obligations, will risk exhausting what are ultimately its finite military resources. The political crisis now wracking Uzbekistan makes this fear very real.

There is no way to predict what emergencies will arise or what these commitments entail, either for the U. S. or its allies, not the least because--as Iraq proved last year and Vietnam long before it--America`s intelligence on the capabilities and intentions of possible enemies against which it blares its readiness to "preempt" is so utterly faulty. Without accurate information a state can believe and do anything, and this is the predicament the Bush Administration`s allies are in. It is simply not to their national interest, much less to the political interests of those now in power or the security of their people, to pursue foreign policies based on a blind, uncritical acceptance of fictions or flamboyant adventurism premised on false premises and information. Such acceptance is far too open-ended, both in terms of potential time and in the political costs involved. If Bush is reelected, America`s allies and friends will have to confront such stark choices, a process that will redefine and probably shatter existing alliances. Many nations, including the larger, powerful ones, will embark on independent, realistic foreign policies, and the dramatic events in Spain have reinforced this likelihood.

But the United States will be more prudent, and the world will be far safer, only if it is constrained by a lack of allies and isolated. And that is happening.

Gabriel Kolko is the leading historian of modern warfare. He is the author of the classic Century of War: Politics, Conflicts and Society Since 1914 and Another Century of War?. He can be reached at: [e-mail].

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Sollen schon fast 1 Mio vorbestellt sein. Ist seit mehreren Tagen Nr.2 bei Amazon, obwohl es erst heute 14. rauskommt.

September 14, 2004
BOOKS OF THE TIMES | `THE FAMILY`
A Bush Biography for the Age of Innuendo
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

FAMILY
The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty
By Kitty Kelley
Illustrated. 705 pages. Doubleday. $29.95

itty Kelley`s catty new book about the Bush family is a perfect artifact of our current political culture in which unsubstantiated attacks on Senator John Kerry`s Vietnam War record and old questions about President Bush`s National Guard service get more attention than present-day issues like the Iraq war, the economy, intelligence reform or the assault weapons ban.

It is also a perfect artifact of a cultural climate in which gossip and innuendo thrive on the Internet; more and more biographies of artists and public figures dwell, speculatively, on familial dysfunction and disorder; and buzz - be it based on verified facts or sheer rumor-mongering - is regarded as a be-all and end-all.

"The Family" is seeded with some spicy allegations about drugs and sex, but has little to say about national security, the Florida election standoff or the Bush family`s ties with the Saudis. Far more space is devoted to early family history and the career of George Herbert Walker Bush than to the current president. And far more attention is lavished on the contentious relationship between Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan, say, than on George W. Bush`s collegial relationship with the neoconservatives and religious right. The current Iraq war receives less than 7 pages of full discussion in a 705-page book.

Of course, the reader might well ask: what else could be expected from the author of earlier books like "Jackie Oh!" and "Elizabeth Taylor: The Last Star"? Ms. Kelley has always been better at dishing dirt than making sense of a subject`s overall life (her 1986 biography of Frank Sinatra, for instance, never shed any real light on how such a swaggering tough guy could produce such emotionally honest, achingly vulnerable music). And while she seems to have realized with her 1991 book on Nancy Reagan that our tabloid culture made it possible for her to turn her Hollywood scandal-sheet-like exposés on the world of politics, her books have been hobbled by an unwillingness to grapple seriously with the central fact of her subjects` lives, the thing that makes us interested in them in the first place - in the case of Sinatra, his musical artistry; in the case of Bush family members, their political record and its implications.

Much of the basic biographical material in this volume will be overwhelmingly familiar to readers of newspapers and magazines, the numerous memoirs and letters published by members of the Bush family, and such earlier Bush books as Bill Minutaglio`s 1999 "First Son: George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty." Allegations about business cronyism tinnily echo assertions made by Kevin Phillips in "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush" (Viking) while observations about intramural family rivalries piggyback on ones made by Peter and Rochelle Schweizer in their 2004 book "The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty" (Doubleday).

In fact, most of this book`s psychological insights about Bush family dynamics have been reiterated many times before by biographers and reporters: that George W. Bush possesses his mother`s sharp tongue and unforgiving memory, not his father`s more genial persona; that Jeb Bush was regarded for many years as the family`s political comer, while George W. was seen as the black sheep; that the current President Bush has long been obsessed with avoiding what he sees as mistakes made by his father, resulting in his failure to win re-election. Ms. Kelley`s conclusion that the Bush family is a political dynasty that`s used its connections here and abroad to promote itself will hardly come as a surprise to anyone.

Though Doubleday is promoting Ms. Kelley as "a master investigative biographer," she lavishes all too much of her admirable energy on trying to ferret out personal peccadilloes, ranging from drug and alcohol binges to temper tantrums, from weight problems to bad taste in gift-giving. Certainly family members (particularly George W. Bush, running in the aftermath of the Bill Clinton scandals) have to some degree invited this sort of scrutiny by selling themselves as a close, wholesome, all-American clan, but Ms. Kelley`s relentless concentration on these matters, often to the exclusion of far more serious issues, makes for a tacky, voyeuristic and petty-seeming narrative.

Ms. Kelley contends that Senator Prescott Bush (the first President Bush`s father) went on "alcoholic binges," portentously adding that "the genetic predisposition to alcoholism would wreak havoc with all of his children in years to come." She prattles on at length about an alleged affair between George H. W. Bush and his longtime aide Jennifer Fitzgerald (rumors of which appeared in 1992 in The New York Post). She asserts that Laura Bush, as a student at Southern Methodist University in the 60`s, "had been known in her college days as a go-to girl for dime bags of marijuana," citing a public relations executive named Robert Nash, identified as "an Austin friend of many in Laura`s SMU class." And she writes that Sharon Bush, the former wife of the president`s brother Neil, "alleged that W. had snorted cocaine with one of his brothers at Camp David during the time their father was president of the United States." Sharon Bush has since denied saying this to the author; Doubleday has issued a statement saying it stands by Ms. Kelley`s reporting.

Some of the more titillating material in this book falls into the realm of old unsubstantiated rumors. Ms. Kelley repeats allegations floated by Larry Flynt in 2000 that George W. Bush had impregnated a woman in the 1970`s and then arranged an abortion, even though the mainstream press at the time did not go with the story, and even though a National Enquirer reporter said that when he had interviewed the woman she denied having had an abortion. Other allegations in this book seem to be based on hearsay or a single (sometimes anonymous) source.

Ms. Kelley suggests, for instance, that George H. W. Bush had an affair in the early 1960`s with "an Italian beauty named Rosemarie," based on the recollections of an unnamed New York lawyer, who said the woman approached him for legal counsel in 1964. Later, talking about possible infidelities on the part of his son, George W. Bush, she serves up this mishmash of insinuation: "Even as a married man, George had a whispered past, which almost surfaced during the campaign. A woman appeared in Austin, claiming to have been a call girl from Midland with an intimate knowledge of him during his days in the oil patch. `Supposedly she was `the other woman` in his life, or one of them,` said Peck Young, an Austin political consultant." In the course of this book Ms. Kelley also accuses George W. Bush of being mean, foul-mouthed and careless. Her most vociferous attacks, however, are reserved for his father, whom she depicts as opportunistic, secretive, duplicitous, elitist and often just plain nasty. Some of her descriptions are based on political decisions like the Willie Horton ads used in the 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis, but others simply read like ad hominem attacks, fueled by remarks from disaffected relatives or political enemies.

Although Ms. Kelley halfheartedly tries to maintain a judicious tone in the earlier portions of the book, her prose grows increasingly vitriolic as her narrative progresses. She writes that as president and vice president, the elder Bush "allowed his family to take full financial advantage of his high political position": "In that sense," she quips, "he threw open the barnyard door and yelled, `Suey Suey Suey,` while his brothers and his sons snuffled up to the trough." She adds that these relatives make "the errant relatives of other high-office holders look like hummingbirds alongside vultures."

Of Barbara Bush, Ms. Kelley writes: "Behind her grandmotherly façade was a pearl-wearing mugger the equal of Ma Barker." And of the elder Bushes` post-White House years, she smirks that they "went into retirement like Salvation Army bell ringers, eager to rake in as much money as fast as they possibly could." Clearly this book - along with the timing of its publication - is intended to have an impact on the coming election. The book`s flap copy reads: "at a crucial point in American history, Kitty Kelley is the one person to finally tell all about the family that has, perhaps more than any other, defined our role in the modern world. This is the book the Bushes don`t want you to read." But the author`s undisguised contempt for many of the Bushes, combined with her failure to come to terms with politics and policy, and her tireless focus on sex, drugs and alcohol, will likely play into family members` penchant for assailing the media. It will likely give them an opening to shrug off this book as a snarky exercise in gossip, instead of forcing them to deal with substantive questions about their political record. Then again, in an election season willfully focused on the past and the personal and the unproven, this book may provide yet another distraction from issues here and now.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Die Meldungen des neuen Tages!

Mindestens 35 Tote bei Explosion in Bagdad
Dienstag 14 September, 2004 09:38 CET



Bagdad (Reuters) - Bei einer Explosion vor einer Polizeiwache in Bagdad sind am Dienstag mindestens 35 Menschen getötet worden.

Mindestens 15 Leichen seien in der Nähe des Explosionsortes zu sehen, berichtete ein Korrespondent der Nachrichtenagenur Reuters. Ein Reuters-Kameramann sah mindestens 20 weitere Todesopfer in der Leichenhalle eines nahe gelegenen Krankenhauses.

Unterschiedliche Berichte gab es über die Ursache der Explosion. Während die US-Armee und das irakische Innenministerium von einer Autobombe sprachen, berichteten Augenzeugen von einer Granatenexplosion.

Anschlag auf irakische Pipeline legt Öl-Lieferungen lahm
Dienstag 14 September, 2004 09:25 CET



Kirkuk (Reuters) - Ein Sabotageanschlag auf eine Pipeline südwestlich von Kirkuk hat die Öl-Lieferungen aus dem Nordirak in die Türkei erneut lahm gelegt.

Ein Sprecher der irakischen North Oil Company sagte der Nachrichtenagentur Reuters am Dienstag: "Die Exporte sind komplett unterbrochen." Die Hauptpipeline in die Türkei musste bereits nach einem Sabotageakt Anfang September geschlossen werden. Über eine Ersatzpipeline konnten in den vergangenen Wochen noch 200.000 bis 300.000 Barrel Öl pro Tag exportiert werden. Auch diese Lieferungen sind durch den neuerlichen Anschlag gestoppt. Vor den Anschlägen lag die tägliche Transportmenge bei 600.000 Barrel. Ein Barrel entspricht etwa 159 Liter.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Ab heute darf in den USA wieder alles an Waffen gekauft werden.

[Joerver]

Raising the Pressure meint, dass ohne jegliche Zurückhaltung Wohngebiete bombadiert werden.
Was ist der Unterschied zwischen den Bomben der Aufständigen und den Bomben der US-Bomber?

September 14, 2004
NEWS ANALYSIS
Raising the Pressure in Iraq
By DEXTER FILKINS

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 13 - With four months to go before nationwide elections in Iraq, the insurgency has grown more brazen and sophisticated, prompting American commanders to begin a series of military operations to regain control over large sections of the country lost in recent months.

But as the Americans and their allies raise the pressure on the insurgents, they are rapidly finding themselves in the classic dilemma faced by governments battling guerrilla movements: ease up, and the insurgency may grow; crack down, and risk losing the support of the population. The additional quandary facing the Americans is the need to break the deadlock before January, the self-imposed deadline for elections.

On Sunday, insurgents struck the Americans and their allies in the Iraqi government in manifold ways: with suicide bombings, mortars and rockets, many of them showing a careful aim. Some of those attacks seemed intended not just to hurt the Americans but to provoke them into overreacting and alienating ordinary Iraqis.

How long the Americans can stick to their newly aggressive strategy is open to question: last April, as marines moved on Falluja, and Iraqi casualties soared into the hundreds, the Americans called off the attack and let a gang of insurgents take over.

Even now, the get-tough approach is showing signs of backfiring. On Sunday, when a suicide bomber crippled an American personnel carrier, a gun battle broke out, followed by an airstrike by two American helicopters. At least 15 Iraqis died and 50 were wounded, including a 12-year-old-girl and a television journalist. Inside the grim and chaotic wards of Baghdad`s hospitals on Sunday, the Americans seemed to have made more enemies than friends.

On Monday, the scene repeated itself in another corner of Baghdad. When three insurgents opened fire on an American sport utility vehicle, American soldiers sprayed the area with gunfire, destroying three cars and killing at least one Iraqi civilian and wounding three others.

"When the Americans fire back, they don`t hit the people who are attacking them, only the civilians," said Osama Ali, a 24-year-old Iraqi who witnessed the attack. "This is why Iraqis hate the Americans so much. This is why we love the mujahedeen."

An iron fist also runs the risk of alienating allies. On Monday, Turkey`s foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, said his government would end all cooperation with the United States in Iraq if the military did not stop pounding Talafar, a northern city of ethnic Turkmen where 50 have died over the last two days.

The approach appears to be straining the Iraqi government as well. On Monday, the office of Ayad Allawi, the interim prime minister, said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser, had been relieved of his duties and replaced with a close ally of Dr. Allawi, Qassim Daoud.

The precise reasons for Dr. Rubaie`s dismissal were unclear, but he and Dr. Allawi disagreed sharply over how to quell the insurgency and, in particular, how to deal with Moktada al-Sadr, the rebel Shiite cleric. While Dr. Rubaie favors coaxing Mr. Sadr into the political mainstream, Dr. Allawi is demanding Mr. Sadr`s surrender first.

At the heart of the problem facing Dr. Allawi and the American military is the legitimacy of the elections called for January.

The Americans have long hoped that democratic elections could drain away the anti-American anger here, and help set the stage for an eventual withdrawal. But American diplomats acknowledge that holding elections in a town under insurgent control is probably unrealistic.

If elections were to go forward under such circumstances anyway, a large number of Iraqi voters would probably be unable to take part.

"I could see circumstances where we can`t do Falluja," a Western diplomat said recently, referring to the prospect of holding elections there. "But we will not let the rejectionists in Iraq have a veto over the elections."

As American forces try to retake the cities of the so-called Sunni triangle west of Baghdad - places like Falluja and Ramadi that were strongholds of support for Saddam Hussein - some Iraqi leaders warn that they will meet stiff opposition. Separate problems have arisen in the Sadr City section of Baghdad and in southern cities where Iraq`s Shiite Muslims, who make up a majority of the population, are concentrated.

"For sure, if the situation stays like this, it will be difficult to have free and honest elections," said Harith al-Dhari, the chairman of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, which represents hundreds of Sunni clerics around the country.

"But Iraqis do not rely so much on these elections," Mr. Dhari said. "The most important thing is for the Americans to assign a date for their withdrawal. That is the only solution."

The Americans face a similar quandary in trying to hold elections in the country`s Shiite-dominated areas, where Mr. Sadr and his Mahdi Army are still refusing to give up their guns.

In April and again last month, Mr. Sadr`s militia showed itself capable of seizing and holding the centers of the largest cities in southern Iraq, including Basra, Amarra and Diwaniya. Unless Mr. Sadr can be persuaded to disband his militia, British officers who had to fight Mr. Sadr in the south believe that no matter how many of his fighters they kill, he will still be able to seriously disrupt the January elections.

It is for that reason that Dr. Allawi and American military officers are refusing to entertain any such talks with Mr. Sadr until he disarms first. Mr. Sadr`s aides, wary and badly bloodied, are balking.

In the meantime, American forces have been assaulting the Mahdi Army in its Sadr City stronghold. On many nights in Baghdad, the sounds of shooting and explosions - some of them from American airstrikes - can be heard from miles away.

Seated in his Baghdad office, Mr. Dhari, the Sunni cleric, said that efforts to persuade Iraqis with the gun would ultimately fail, as they did for the British after the World War I.

"When you push the Iraqi people, and you harm the Iraqi people, you will just cause them to fight back harder," Mr. Dhari said. "The idea that force will be enough to calm the Iraqis is a false dream."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

It`s Worse Than You Think
As Americans debate Vietnam, the U.S. death toll tops 1,000 in Iraq. And the insurgents are still getting stronger
By Scott Johnson and Babak Dehghanpisheh
Newsweek
Updated: 1:14 p.m. ET Sept. 12, 2004

Sept. 20 issue - Iraqis don`t shock easily these days, but eyewitnesses could only blink in disbelief as they recounted last Tuesday`s broad-daylight kidnappings in central Baghdad. At about 5 in the afternoon, on a quiet side street outside the Ibn Haitham hospital, a gang armed with pistols, AK-47s and pump-action shotguns raided a small house used by three Italian aid groups. The gunmen, none of them wearing masks, took orders from a smooth-shaven man in a gray suit; they called him "sir." When they drove off, the gunmen had four hostages: two local NGO employees—one of them a woman who was dragged out of the house by her headscarf—and two 29-year-old Italians, Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, both members of the antiwar group A Bridge to Baghdad. The whole job took less than 10 minutes. Not a shot was fired. About 15 minutes afterward, an American Humvee convoy passed hardly a block away—headed in the opposite direction.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
Sixteen months after the war`s supposed end, Iraq`s insurgency is spreading. Each successful demand by kidnappers has spawned more hostage-takings—to make Philippine troops go home, to stop Turkish truckers from hauling supplies into Iraq, to extort fat ransom payments from Kuwaitis. The few relief groups that remain in Iraq are talking seriously about leaving. U.S. forces have effectively ceded entire cities to the insurgents, and much of the country elsewhere is a battleground. Last week the total number of U.S. war dead in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark, reaching 1,007 by the end of Saturday.

U.S. forces are working frantically to train Iraqis for the thankless job of maintaining public order. The aim is to boost Iraqi security forces from 95,000 to 200,000 by sometime next year. Then, using a mixture of force and diplomacy, the Americans plan to retake cities and install credible local forces. That`s the hope, anyway. But the quality of new recruits is debatable. During recent street demonstrations in Najaf, police opened fire on crowds, killing and injuring dozens. The insurgents, meanwhile, are recruiting, too. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once referred to America`s foes in Iraq as "dead-enders," then the Pentagon maintained they probably numbered 5,000, and now senior military officials talk about "dozens of regional cells" that could call upon as many as 20,000 fighters.

Yet U.S. officials publicly insist that Iraq will somehow hold national elections before the end of January. The appointed council currently acting as Iraq`s government under interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is to be replaced by an elected constitutional assembly—if the vote takes place. "I presume the election will be delayed," says the Iraqi Interior Ministry`s chief spokesman, Sabah Kadhim. A senior Iraqi official sees no chance of January elections: "I`m convinced that it`s not going to happen. It`s just not realistic. How is it going to happen?" Some Iraqis worry that America will stick to its schedule despite all obstacles. "The Americans have created a series of fictional dates and events in order to delude themselves," says Ghassan Atiyya, director of the independent Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, who recently met with Allawi and American representatives to discuss the January agenda. "Badly prepared elections, rather than healing wounds, will open them."

America has its own Election Day to worry about. For U.S. troops in Iraq, one especially sore point is the stateside public`s obsession with the candidates` decades-old military service. "Stop talking about Vietnam," says one U.S. official who has spent time in the Sunni Triangle. "People should be debating this war, not that one." His point was not that America ought to walk away from Iraq. Hardly any U.S. personnel would call that a sane suggestion. But there`s widespread agreement that Washington needs to rethink its objectives, and quickly. "We`re dealing with a population that hovers between bare tolerance and outright hostility," says a senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad. "This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy. We thought that there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell is breaking loose."

It`s not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in those statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces in August—the worst monthly average since Bush`s flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two" insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That`s how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents are standing and fighting—a step up to phase three.

Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S. troops simply avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them "no-go areas." "We could go into them any time we wanted," he argues. The preferred term is "insurgent enclaves." They`re spreading. Counterinsurgency experts call it the "inkblot strategy": take control of several towns or villages and expand outward until the areas merge. The first city lost to the insurgents was Fallujah, in April. Now the list includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra, where power shifted back and forth between the insurgents and American-backed leaders last week. "There is no security force there [in Fallujah], no local government," says a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad. "We would get attacked constantly. Forget about it."

U.S. military planners only wish they could. "What we see is a classic progression," says Andrew Krepinevich, author of the highly respected study "The Army and Vietnam." "What we also see is that the U.S. military is not trained or organized to fight insurgencies. That was the deliberate choice after Vietnam. Now we look to be paying the price." Americans aren`t safe even on the outskirts of a city like Fallujah. Early last week a suicide bomber rammed his vehicle into two U.S. Humvees nine miles north of town on the four-lane concrete bypass called Highway 10. Seven Americans died. It was one of the deadliest blows against U.S. forces since June, when Iraqis formally resumed control of their government.

As much as ordinary Iraqis may hate the insurgents, they blame the Americans for creating the whole mess. Three months ago Iraqi troops and U.S.-dominated "multinational forces" pulled out of Samarra, and insurgents took over the place immediately. "The day the MNF left, people celebrated in the streets," says Kadhim, the Interior spokesman. "But that same day, vans arrived in town and started shooting. They came from Fallujah and other places and they started blowing up houses." Local elders begged Allawi`s government to send help. "The leaders of the tribes come to see us and they say, `Really, we are scared, we don`t like these people`," Kadhim continues. "But we just don`t have the forces at the moment to help them." Last week negotiators reached a tentative peace deal, but it`s not likely to survive long. The Iraqi National Guard is the only homegrown security force that people respect, and all available ING personnel are deployed elsewhere.

Will Iraq`s troubles get even worse? "The insurgency can certainly sustain what it`s doing for a while," says a senior U.S. military official. Many educated Iraqis aren`t waiting to find out. Applicants mobbed the courtyard of the Baghdad passport office last week, desperate for a chance to escape. Police fired shots in the air, trying to control the crowd. "Every day there is shooting, gunfire, people killed, headaches for lack of sleep," said Huda Hussein, 34, a Ph.D. in computer science who has spent the past year and a half looking for work. "I want to go to a calm place for a while." It`s too bad for Iraq—and for America—that the insurgents don`t share that wish.

With John Barry in Washington
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5973272/site/newsweek/

[Joerver]

Wenn man bedenkt mit welchen Versprechen die Neocons den Irakkrieg begonnen haben, dann sollte man sich vor `Schadenfreude` hüten, ein Wort, das im Englischen auch zu finden ist und in den US-Zeitungen in den letzten Monaten auch oft benutzt wird und wurde. In Anbetracht der Opferzahlen kann man das Wort nur auf die Überheblichkeit der Neocons und ihrer Theorien anwenden, sonst wäre es doch sehr zynisch. Wenn nun aus dem Neoconlager für weitere Kreuzzüge wirbt gegen den Iran und Syrien, sollte man denen nicht zugestimmen? Genauso sollte man nicht auch einer Wiederwahl Bush zugestimmen? Etwas überraschende Töne. Aber was würde passieren, wenn Kerry Präsident würde? Er würde nach Europa kommen und um Zustimmung für seine leichtveränderte Irakpolitik werben. Dann gäbe es für Chirac und Schröder und auch andere keine Möglichkeit mehr abzulehnen. Man müßte sich irgendwie beteiligen und wäre in dem Schamassel mittendrin, den man nicht gewollt hat. Denn auch Kerry hat keine Lösung und seine etwas wagen Versprechungen die Truppen innerhalb von 4 Jahren aus dem Irak abzuziehen, sind keine fest gegebene Zusage. Es könnte ich aus der verfahrenen Lage heraus eher eine Situation ergeben, dass die Situation sich verschärft und dann wären auch wir dabei mitten im `Krieg gegen den Terror` und im `Clash of Civilisation`. Denn eins hat sich in den letzten Jahren unter Bush herausgestellt, die USA ist verliebt in Gewalt und nicht in der Lage andere Lösungsmöglichkeiten anzudenken. Ich erinnere nur an die Diskussion über den Begriff `Girlie man` der in dem Zusammenhang geprägt wurde, weil Kerry einen etwas sensibleren Umgang mit dem Terror gefordert hat. Bush hat die USA in den letzten Jahren gezeigt ohne die intellektuelle Verschleierung der Ostküste und Kaliforniens, sozusagen USA pur. Solange ich mich erinneren kann, hat die USA immer eine Politik der Gewalt und der Überheblichkeit betrieben, nur gebremst im kalten Krieg durch eine 2. Supermacht. Jetzt ohne Gegenpol und ohne den Charme des Governors aus Arkansas nun mit einem Präsidenten, der sich in der Vergangenheit durch Drogen, Sex und Schlägereien hervorgetan hat und dem nun der Gnade einer Bekehrung widerfahren ist, erkennen wir das ungeschmickte Amerika des Mittleren Westens, des Südens und der Großmannsucht und des Haifischkapitalismus aus Texas. Eine USA mit der Europa nicht übereinstimmt und von dem sich Europa emanziperen muß. Ansätze gab es schon in den letzten Jahren und Möglichkeiten gibt es genug in Verbindungen zu Rußland, China und anderen Ländern, denen die Arroganz der USA genauso zuwider ist, die aber den Dollar gerne nehmen, solange er noch einen Wert darstellt, um ihre eigene Wirtschaftskraft aufzubauen. Nur habe diese Länder die USA in der Zwickmühle, denn durch deren große Mengen an Dollar ist die Wirtschaft der USA von denen abhängig und jederzeit erpresbar. Denn ein Aufdenmarktschmeißen der riesigen Mengen an Dollar würde die US-Wirtschaft zusammenbrechen lassen. Das würde diese Länder auch schädigen, aber diese Länder könnten das wegen der Leidensfähigkeit ihrer Völker leichter tragen. Für mich ist z.B. die Zerschlagung des Yukos Imperium und die Entmachtung der anderen russischen Oligarchen ein Zeichen, dass Putin den Einfluß des US-Kapitals auf Rußland begrenzen will. Dasselbe gilt auch für die Skeptik mit der Rußland die ungebremste Einmischung der USA in Mittelasien betrachtet. Das betrifft auch die Chinesen und auch Japaner, die versuchen, die Regionen Mittelasiens unter ihren Einfluß zu bekommen, um sich deren Erdölvorkommen zu sichern. Im Grunde genommen könnten wir Europäer uns zurücklehnen, wenn Bush wiedergewählt wird und warten, bis er mit seiner Politik voll an die Wand fährt. Bei Kerry könnten wir das nicht. Wir wären wieder voll Partei und würden bei einer Escalation voll ins Fadenkreuz geraten. Europa hat gelernt mit Katastrophen umzugehen, weil uns schon viele ereilt haben, im Gegensatz zu den USA, die diese bisher nur anderen zugefügt haben und deshalb so hysterisch reagieren, wenn es ihnen passiert. Das gilt auch für eine Wirtschaftskrise, bewußt herbeigeführt oder als Endpunkt einer Schuldenwirtschaft. Europa hat in den letzten ahrhunderten viele Krisen gemeistert und würde auch eine solche Krise meistern und sich vielleicht in der Krise häuten. Also nehmen wir die Wiederwahl Bushs, wenn es passiert, als Chance zur Emanzipation.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
[urlFrontline/World]http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/elections/indexa.html[/url]
An international perspective on the U.S. presidential campaign.

[Joerver]

`Hawk vs. Hawk` Die Ansicht eines Neocon. Brooks ist Mitherausgeber von `Weekly Standard` der Vereinszeitschrift der Neocons.

September 14, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Hawk vs. Hawk
By DAVID BROOKS

The debate on how to proceed in Iraq is not between the hawks and the doves: it`s within the hawk community, and it`s between the gradualists and the confrontationalists.

The gradualists argue that it would be crazy to rush into terrorist-controlled cities and try to clean them out with massive force because the initial attack would be so bloody there`d be a debilitating political backlash.

The terrorists would fight as long as there were heart-wrenching scenes of dead children on satellite TV, then would melt away to fight another day. And if the U.S. did take control of, say, a newly destroyed Falluja, we would find that we didn`t have enough troops to control the city and still hunt down terrorists elsewhere. We`d end up abandoning the city (as we have other places), and the terrorists would just take control again. We`d be back where we started.

There is a reason, the gradualists point out, that counterinsurgency wars have tended to take a decade or more. They can be won only with slow, steady pressure. The better course, they continue, is to allow some time to train and build up Iraq`s own security forces, and allow some time for the interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, to build up a base of anti-insurgent political support. The lesson of Vietnam is that you can`t win these wars via military means. You have to build a political structure that organizes public support and mix it with military might.

The gradualists point to what just happened in Najaf as their model for how the Iraq war should proceed. First, Allawi laid down tough conditions: that Moktada al-Sadr`s militia had to go. Then he convinced many of the locals that their lives would be better without lawless thugs in their midst. Then the U.S. attacked and weakened the terrorists. Then Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani brokered an agreement that led to the re-establishment of government control. Now development aid can flow to Najaf again. Aid projects worth roughly $6 million are resuming, and $37 million more is on the way.

Najaf, the gradualists argue, showed it`s possible to marginalize the extremists and rally the decent majority. Now the task is to build on that success in other towns, and slowly rob the terrorists of sanctuaries.

The confrontationalists can`t believe the Bush folks, of all people, are waging a sensitive war on terror. By moving so slowly, the U.S. is allowing terror armies to thrive and grow. With U.S. acquiescence, fascists are allowed to preen, terrorize and entrench themselves.

Moreover, they continue, there`s no reason to think the Najaf model will work in Sunni cities, where we don`t understand and can`t exploit the local rifts, where there is no Sistani figure to come in at crucial moments.

In Sunni cities, the so-called moderates may make deals with Allawi, but they break them just as quickly - or else are beheaded by the terrorists. Members of the Falluja Brigade, who were supposed to take the city from the terrorists, switched over and joined the other side.

The gradualist approach, the confrontationalists conclude, has allowed terror to thrive. Now there are about 100 attacks a day. U.S. troops find themselves engaged in a modulated half-war in which they engage the enemy enough to suffer casualties, but not enough to win. The Iraqis are demoralized because it doesn`t look as if the country will be pacified in time for full national elections, and because without security there can be no economic development - only more misery and more terror. U.S. troops are demoralized because if they are going to hit the enemy, they want to hit the enemy hard.

The gradualists clearly have the upper hand within the Bush administration. When administration officials talk about Iraq, they emphasize that this is a deliberate process, leading to elections in January but continuing long after. But when pressed, they tend to search for some compromise approach, emphasizing political solutions in places like Sadr City and the military approach in Falluja.

It`s depressing to realize how strong the case against each option is. But the weight of the argument is on the gradualist side. That`s mostly because people like Ayad Allawi deserve a chance to succeed. These people in the interim government are scorned as stooges and U.S. puppets, but they`re risking and sometimes giving their lives for their country. Let`s take the time to give them a shot.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Der us-liberale Wirtschaftsprofessor.

September 14, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Taking On the Myth
By PAUL KRUGMAN

On Sunday, a celebrating crowd gathered around a burning U.S. armored vehicle. Then a helicopter opened fire; a child and a journalist for an Arabic TV news channel were among those killed. Later, the channel repeatedly showed the journalist doubling over and screaming, "I`m dying; I`m dying."

Such scenes, which enlarge the ranks of our enemies by making America look both weak and brutal, are inevitable in the guerrilla war President Bush got us into. Osama bin Laden must be smiling.

U.S. news organizations are under constant pressure to report good news from Iraq. In fact, as a Newsweek headline puts it, "It`s worse than you think." Attacks on coalition forces are intensifying and getting more effective; no-go zones, which the military prefers to call "insurgent enclaves," are spreading - even in Baghdad. We`re losing ground.

And the losses aren`t only in Iraq. Al Qaeda has regrouped. The invasion of Iraq, intended to demonstrate American power, has done just the opposite: nasty regimes around the world feel empowered now that our forces are bogged down. When a Times reporter asked Mr. Bush about North Korea`s ongoing nuclear program, "he opened his palms and shrugged."

Yet many voters still believe that Mr. Bush is doing a good job protecting America.

If Senator John Kerry really has advisers telling him not to attack Mr. Bush on national security, he should dump them. When Dick Cheney is saying vote Bush or die, responding with speeches about jobs and health care doesn`t cut it.

Mr. Kerry should counterattack by saying that Mr. Bush is endangering the nation by subordinating national security to politics.

In early 2002 the Bush administration, already focused on Iraq, ignored pleas to commit more forces to Afghanistan. As a result, the Taliban is resurgent, and Osama is still out there.

In the buildup to the Iraq war, commanders wanted a bigger invasion force to help secure the country. But civilian officials, eager to prove that wars can be fought on the cheap, refused. And that`s one main reason our soldiers are still dying in Iraq.

This past April, U.S. forces, surely acting on White House orders after American television showed gruesome images of dead contractors, attacked Falluja. Lt. Gen. James Conway, the Marine commander on the scene, opposed "attacking out of revenge" but was overruled - and he was overruled again with an equally disastrous decision to call off the attack after it had begun. "Once you commit," General Conway said, "you got to stay committed." But Mr. Bush, faced with the prospect of a casualty toll that would have hurt his approval rating, didn`t.

Can Mr. Kerry, who voted to authorize the Iraq war, criticize it? Yes, by pointing out that he voted only to give Mr. Bush a big stick. Once that stick had forced Saddam to let W.M.D. inspectors back in, there was no need to invade. And Mr. Kerry should keep pounding Mr. Cheney, who is trying to cover for the absence of W.M.D. by lying, yet again, about Saddam`s ties to Al Qaeda.

Some pundits are demanding that Mr. Kerry produce a specific plan for Iraq - a demand they never make of Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry should turn the tables, and demand to know what - aside from pretending that things are going fine - Mr. Bush intends to do about the spiraling disaster. And Mr. Kerry can ask why anyone should trust a leader who refuses to replace the people who created that disaster because he thinks it`s bad politics to admit a mistake.

Mr. Kerry can argue that he wouldn`t have overruled the commanders who had wanted to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda, or dismissed warnings from former Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army`s chief of staff, that peacekeeping would require a large force. He wouldn`t have ignored General Conway`s warnings about the dangers of storming into Falluja, or overruled his protests about calling off that assault halfway through.

On the other hand, he can argue that he would have fired Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary who ridiculed General Shinseki. And he would definitely have fired Donald Rumsfeld for the failure to go in with enough troops, the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and more.

The truth is that Mr. Bush, by politicizing the "war on terror," is putting America at risk. And Mr. Kerry has to say that.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Ambulance torn apart in Fallujah as US launches `precision` strikes
From Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad

14 September 2004

A plume of grey smoke billowed above Fallujah yesterday as the US military claimed they were making precision air strikes against insurgents in the city and local doctors said that civilians were being killed and wounded.

The US army said its warplanes had bombed houses because it had intelligence about the presence of fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom the US sees as the guiding hand behind many attacks on its forces.

Dr Adel Khamis of the Fallujah General Hospital said at least 16 people were killed, including women and children, and 12 others were wounded. Video film showed a Red Crescent ambulance torn apart by an explosion. A hospital official said the driver, a paramedic and five patients had been killed by the blast.

"The conditions here are miserable - an ambulance was bombed, three houses destroyed and men and women killed," said Rafayi Hayad al-Esawi, the director of the hospital. "The American army has no morals."

The US air force has claimed repeatedly since the invasion of Iraq in March last year to be hitting hostile targets identified by US intelligence. During the war it made 50 air strikes to kill senior members of Saddam Hussein`s regime some of which caused many civilian casualties. Only after the war did US Defence officials admit that all the air strikes had missed their target. On Sunday US helicopters fired rockets into a crowd in Haifa Street in central Baghdad killing 13 people including an Al-Arabiya television correspondent killed as he was reporting.

The escalating violence in Iraq is putting in doubt the feasibility of holding elections in January. The interim government has complete control of only a few cities such as Najaf where the opposition has been routed by the US army using its massive firepower. "Iraq is becoming fragmented like Lebanon with each community having some power," said Ghasan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator.

The US is now trying to reassert the authority of the interim government by bombing and the use of its air power but this is making the 138,000-strong US army in Iraq more unpopular by the day. High civilian casualties also create a backlash and act as a recruiting sergeant for insurgents.

Ironically one of the quietest cities in Iraq is Tikrit, Saddam Hussein`s home town, where the US army agreed with local tribal leaders not to fire back with its artillery if it was mortared.


14 September 2004 12:50
©2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

`He`s just sleeping, I kept telling myself`

On Sunday, 13 Iraqis were killed and dozens injured in Baghdad when US helicopters fired on a crowd of unarmed civilians. G2 columnist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, who was injured in the attack, describes the scene of carnage - and reveals just how lucky he was to walk away
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad
Tuesday September 14, 2004

The Guardian
It started with a phone call early on Sunday morning: "Big pile of smoke over Haifa Street." Still half asleep I put on my jeans, cursing those insurgents who do their stuff in the early morning. What if I just go back to bed, I thought - by the time I will be there it will be over. In the car park it struck me that I didn`t have my flak jacket in the car, but figured it was most probably just an IED (improvised explosive device) under a Humvee and I would be back soon.

On the way to Haifa Street I was half praying that everything would be over or that the Americans would seal off the area. I haven`t recovered from Najaf yet.

Haifa Street was built by Saddam in the early 80s, part of a scheme that was supposed to give Baghdad a modern look. A long, wide boulevard with huge Soviet high-rise buildings on both sides, it acts like a curtain, screening off the network of impoverished alleyways that are inhabited by Baghdad`s poorest and toughest people, many of whom are from the heart of the Sunni triangle.

When I arrived there I saw hundreds of kids and young men heading towards the smoke. "Run fast, it`s been burning for a long time!" someone shouted as I grabbed my cameras and started to run.
[Table align=right]
Dead and injured Iraqi civilians on Haifa Street, Baghdad, after a US helicopter attack.

[/TABLE]
When I was 50m away I heard a couple of explosions and another cloud of dust rose across the street from where the first column of smoke was still climbing. People started running towards me in waves. A man wearing an orange overall was sweeping the street while others were running. A couple of helicopters in the sky overhead turned away. I jumped into a yard in front of a shop that was set slightly back from the street, 10 of us with our heads behind the yard wall. "It`s a sound bomb," said a man who had his face close to mine.

A few seconds later, I heard people screaming and shouting - something must have happened - and I headed towards the sounds, still crouching behind a wall. Two newswire photographers were running in the opposite direction and we exchanged eye contact.

About 20m ahead of me, I could see the American Bradley armoured vehicle, a huge monster with fire rising from within. It stood alone, its doors open, burning. I stopped, took a couple of photos and crossed the street towards a bunch of people. Some were lying in the street, others stood around them. The helicopters were still buzzing, but further off now.

I felt uneasy and exposed in the middle of the street, but lots of civilians were around me. A dozen men formed a circle around five injured people, all of whom were screaming and wailing. One guy looked at one of the injured men and beat his head and chest: "Is that you, my brother? Is that you?" He didn`t try to reach for him, he just stood there looking at the bloodied face of his brother.

A man sat alone covered with blood and looked around, amazed at the scene. His T-shirt was torn and blood ran from his back. Two men were dragging away an unconscious boy who had lost the lower half of one leg. A pool of blood and a creamy liquid formed beneath the stump on the pavement. His other leg was badly gashed.

I had been standing there taking pictures for two or three minutes when we heard the helicopters coming back. Everyone started running, and I didn`t look back to see what was happening to the injured men. We were all rushing towards the same place: a fence, a block of buildings and a prefab concrete cube used as a cigarette stall.

I had just reached the corner of the cube when I heard two explosions, I felt hot air blast my face and something burning on my head. I crawled to the cube and hid behind it. Six of us were squeezed into a space less than two metres wide. Blood started dripping on my camera but all that I could think about was how to keep the lens clean. A man in his 40s next to me was crying. He wasn`t injured, he was just crying. I was so scared I just wanted to squeeze myself against the wall. The helicopters wheeled overhead, and I realised that they were firing directly at us. I wanted to be invisible, I wanted to hide under the others.

As the helicopters moved a little further off, two of the men ran away to a nearby building. I stayed where I was with a young man, maybe in his early 20s, who was wearing a pair of leather boots and a tracksuit. He was sitting on the ground, his legs stretched in front of him but with his knee joint bent outwards unnaturally. Blood ran on to the dirt beneath him as he peered round the corner. I started taking pictures of him. He looked at me and turned his head back towards the street as if he was looking for something. His eyes were wide open and kept looking.

There in the street, the injured were all left alone: a young man with blood all over his face sat in the middle of the cloud of dust, then fell on to his face.

Behind the cube, the other two men knew each other.

"How are you?" asked the man closer to me. He was lying against the cube`s wall and trying to pull out his cellphone.

"I am not good," said the other, a young man in a blue T-shirt, resting against a fence. He was holding his arm, a chunk of which was missing, exposing the bone.

"Bring a car and come here please, we are injured," his friend was saying into his cellphone.

The man with his knee twisted out, meanwhile, was making only a faint sound. I was so scared I didn`t want to touch him. I kept telling myself he was OK, he wasn`t screaming.

I decided to help the guy with the phone who was screaming. I ripped his T-shirt off and told him to squeeze it against the gash on his head. But I was scared; I wanted to do something, but I couldn`t. I tried to remember the first-aid training I had had in the past, but all I was doing was taking pictures.

I turned back to the man with the twisted knee. His head was on the curb now, his eyes were open but he just kept making the faint sound. I started talking to him, saying, "Don`t worry, you`ll be OK, you`ll be fine." From behind him I looked at the middle of the street, where five injured men were still lying. Three of them were piled almost on top of each other; a boy wearing a white dishdasha lay a few metres away.

One of the three men piled together raised his head and looked around the empty streets with a look of astonishment on his face. He then looked at the boy in front of him, turned to the back and looked at the horizon again. Then he slowly started moving his head to the ground, rested his head on his arms and stretched his hands towards something that he could see. It was the guy who had been beating his chest earlier, trying to help his brother. He wanted help but no one helped. He was just there dying in front of me. Time didn`t exist. The streets were empty and silent and the men lay there dying together. He slid down to the ground, and after five minutes was flat on the street.

I moved, crouching, towards where they were. They were like sleeping men with their arms wrapped around each other in the middle of the empty street. I went to photograph the boy with the dishdasha. He`s just sleeping, I kept telling myself. I didn`t want to wake him. The boy with the amputated leg was there too, left there by the people who were pulling him earlier. The vehicle was still burning.

More kids ventured into the street, looking with curiosity at the dead and injured. Then someone shouted "Helicopters!" and we ran. I turned and saw two small helicopters, black and evil. Frightened, I ran back to my shelter where I heard two more big explosions. At the end of the street the man in the orange overall was still sweeping the street.

The man with the bent knee was unconscious now, his face flat on the curb. Some kids came and said, "He is dead." I screamed at them. "Don`t say that! He is still alive! Don`t scare him." I asked him if he was OK, but he didn`t reply.

We left the kids behind the bent-knee guy, the cellphone guy and the blue V-neck T-shirt guy; they were all unconscious now. We left them to die there alone. I didn`t even try to move any with me. I just ran selfishly away. I reached a building entrance when someone grabbed my arm and took me inside. "There`s an injured man. Take pictures - show the world the American democracy," he said. A man was lying in the corridor in total darkness as someone bandaged him.

Some others told me there was another journalist in the building. They took me to a stairwell leading to the basement, where a Reuters cameraman, a cheerful chubby guy, was lying holding his camera next to his head. He wasn`t screaming but he had a look of pain in his eyes.

I tried to remember his name to call his office, but I couldn`t. He was a friend, we had worked together for months. I have seen him in every press conference, but I couldn`t remember his name.

In time, an ambulance came. I ran to the street as others emerged from their hiding places, all trying to carry injured civilians to the ambulance.

"No, this one is dead," said the driver. "Get someone else."

The ambulance drove away and we all scattered, thinking to ourselves: the Americans won`t fire at an ambulance but they will at us. This scene was repeated a couple of times: each time we heard an ambulance we would emerge into the streets, running for cover again as it left.

Yesterday, sitting in the office, another photographer who was looking at my pictures exclaimed: "So the Arabiya journalist was alive when you were taking pictures!"

"I didn`t see the Arabiya journalist."

He pointed at the picture of the guy with V-neck T-shirt. It was him. He was dead. All the people I had shared my shelter with were dead.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
A `Shiite Strategy` in Iraq?

By Fareed Zakaria

Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A27

Trends in Iraq seem to be moving in two different directions these days. The guerrilla war between the United States and insurgents continues, with mounting clashes and casualties. Yet the standoff with the Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr in Najaf and Kufa has ended, and those cities are no longer controlled by the Mahdi Army. The intractable security problems in Sunni areas, coupled with success in Shiite ones, might lead the Iraqi government (and Washington) toward a "Shiite strategy" in Iraq. But going down that path has its dangers. It would heighten Iraq`s divisions along ethnic and religious lines. That could make today`s problems look easy.

After the creation of the interim Iraqi government in June, many hoped that the insurgency would die down. It hasn`t. Today it appears more organized, entrenched and aggressive than ever. The U.S. Army cannot use its military superiority to take Sunni cities from the guerrillas because that would produce heavy civilian casualties and fuel anti-Americanism. The interim Iraqi government itself may not have the necessary credibility to take on such a task. Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is a tough guy, but he is clearly aware of the limits of his legitimacy. And the Iraqi army will not be up to the job for at least another year. In these circumstances, it`s difficult to see how the insurgency will diminish in strength. Last week Iraq`s ambassador to the United Nations, Sameer Shaker Sumaidaie, predicted to the Scotsman newspaper that unless the United States and Britain added "a considerable amount" of troops to Iraq, the insurgency could grow.

But for all its resilience, the insurgency has not spread across the country, nor is it likely to. Its appeal has clear limits. While it has drawn some support from all Iraqis because of its anti-American character, the insurgency is essentially a Sunni movement, fueled by the anger of Iraq`s once-dominant community, which now fears the future. It is not supported by the Shiites or the Kurds. (The Shiite radical Sadr has been careful not to align himself too closely with the insurgency, for fear of losing support among the Shiites.) This is what still makes me believe that Iraq is not Vietnam. There, the Viet Cong and their northern sponsors both appealed to a broad nationalism that much of the country shared.

Hence the temptations of a "Shiite strategy." Such an approach would view the Sunni areas in Iraq as hopeless until an Iraqi army could go in and establish control. It would ensure that the Shiite community, as well as the Kurds, remained supportive of Allawi`s government and of the upcoming elections. It would attempt to hold elections everywhere -- but if they could not be held in the Sunni areas, elections would go forward anyway. That would isolate the Sunni problem and leave it to be dealt with when forces become available.

The Shiites are easier to handle. They supported the U.S. invasion, which rid them of Saddam Hussein`s tyranny. They have also disciplined their own, curbing Sadr`s violent challenges to the government. Allawi and Washington handled this well, careful not to blast their way through Najaf`s Imam Ali shrine (a "sensitive" war, one might say). But the key was that Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the towering Shiite figure, does not want Sadr to disrupt the path to elections (and thus Shiite majority rule).

A Shiite strategy is understandable but risky. If the Sunnis end up with no representatives, they will have even less incentive to support the new Iraqi order. Today a significant number of Sunnis feel disenfranchised, and thus they support the guerrillas (estimates vary from 25 percent to 65 percent). If they are cut out of the government, all will feel disenfranchised. And to have one-fifth of the population -- people who are well trained and connected -- supporting an insurgency will make it extremely difficult to defeat militarily.

Allawi is trying hard to co-opt Sunni tribal and religious leaders. But the structure of Sunni political authority is fractured; there is no dominant Sunni leader like Ayatollah Sistani. And Allawi`s plans to offer insurgents amnesty were derailed by the U.S. objection to pardoning anyone who was involved in killing Americans.

In Iraq the one truly pleasant surprise so far is that there has been little religious and ethnic bloodshed. Many of the experts who counseled against an invasion predicted that after Hussein`s fall, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would tear each other apart. Nothing like this has happened. The problems -- of resistance, nationalism and anti-Americanism -- have been quite different. But the balance is fragile. If the United States and the Iraqi government played a sectarian strategy, things could unravel.

In many of their colonies the British would often favor a single group as a quick means of gaining stability. Almost always the results were ruinous: a trail of civil war and bloodshed. If Allawi and the United States make the same mistake, there will be 140,000 American troops in the middle of it all.

[e-mail]

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Ein Artikel von der Titelseite der LATimes.

COLUMN ONE
Making Hitler Human
Two new German films seek to flesh out his ghost. They don`t downplay his evil, but some fear the display of any flicker of sympathy.
By Jeffrey Fleishman
Times Staff Writer

September 14, 2004

COLOGNE, Germany — Adolf Hitler flickers on old newsreels, a grainy ghost of spastic gesture and rousing speech. Arm slanted skyward, face drenched in sweat, he seems one-dimensional yet beyond comprehension.

Those sinister images will never fade, but today a new Hitler lurks.

He is in color. He speaks in a mannered voice. He attends parties lighted by chandelier. He pinches the cheeks of little boys, walks with friends through snowy forests. He jokes. And for a fleeting moment, when his scowling and ranting calm, he seems fragile as he conceals a hand shaking from what is believed to have been Parkinson`s disease.

Two German directors are for the first time giving this nation a more human cinematic portrait of the Fuehrer. Once relegated to cameo appearances or skulking in the wings, the Hitler of German film is stepping center stage.

Considered by some critics risky artistic explorations of evil that could instigate right-wing fascination, the movies are attempts to pierce the unfathomable. Imbuing the author of "Mein Kampf" with the tics and foibles of humanity, the directors say, makes him more frightening, his acts more despicable.

"Hitler was a genius seducer, so you have to show that he was charming. You have to show him as a human being," said Heinrich Breloer, director of "The Devil`s Architect," one of the films. "But he is also ruthless, a killer with the eyes of a shark. You have to depict all his nuances. We have to look at the man behind the newsreel images."

The new movies coincide with the recent trend of reexamining the Holocaust and a widening revisionist scholarship that is enabling Germans to portray themselves as victims of a madman who were forced to endure the destruction wrought by Allied bombing.

Hitler has been the insect on the pin of German imagination since World War II. Nearly every night, German television airs footage of the period from the days of Hitler`s ascension to the ruins of Hamburg and Dresden — reminders meant to help prevent a repeat of the atrocities. Today, Germany is the world`s third-largest economy and a prominent voice for democracy and human rights. The age of penance and absolution is over, according to young Germans who are more preoccupied with globalization than the horrors of the past.

"The younger generation doesn`t feel it`s part of those crimes anymore," said Rainer Rother, director of the film archives at the German Historical Museum in Berlin. "There`s no family guilt. It`s history. The main thing for today`s young Germans is not accusation, like it was for the young generation of the 1960s. Today`s youth are more interested in, `How did it happen, and what made Hitler and the others tick?` "

The specter of Hitler is more difficult for older generations to come to terms with. Jewish groups are protesting the Sept. 22 opening of the art collection of Friedrich Christian Flick, the grandson of one of Hitler`s military contractors, who amassed a fortune using slave labor. Last year, Degussa, a company that manufactured poison for concentration camps, ignited a round of soul-searching over its contract to supply an anti-graffiti coating for Berlin`s new Holocaust memorial.

The Fuehrer still haunts. Studies of him have veered from caricature to the absurd to guilt-inspired documentaries and insightful biographies. Fleshing Hitler out as a fully formed character, wrote the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper, "prompts the question whether one should be allowed to feel sympathy" for a leader whose warped ambitions led to the deaths of 50 million people.

"The time is ripe for such a film," Bernd Eichinger, the 55-year-old producer and screenwriter of "Downfall: Hitler and the End of the Third Reich," said at a recent news conference. "It`s important not just to shed light on one`s own history superficially, but rather to tell it from within…. If you had an overall sympathy for Hitler, then the film has failed in its intention. But to show sympathy in certain moments is, I believe, quite fine."

Unmasking the Hitler of 1930s propaganda films, such as Leni Riefenstahl`s "Triumph of the Will," would be for many a chance to assess how the nation that created Beethoven also spawned the Final Solution.

"What is Germany?" asked Breloer, 62, an archival detective with a graying mustache whose film about Hitler`s armaments minister, Albert Speer, is a blend of documentary footage and meticulously re-imagined scenes. "I love the Germany of Goethe and Thomas Mann. But the biggest riddle of my life is how Hitler happened. How could a brutal gang win this country? They overran it. They overwhelmed it. What was in the hearts of our fathers and grandfathers?"

"The Devil`s Architect," scheduled to air on German television in May, examines Speer and his relationship with Hitler. Intelligent and politically clever, Speer was tried at Nuremberg in 1946 and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

"Downfall," opening Thursday in theaters nationwide, captures the last moments of the war as Soviet troops stormed Berlin and the Fuehrer hid in an underground bunker, where he committed suicide with his bride, Eva Braun, on April 30, 1945.

Germans have seen dramatic re-creations of these characters before, notably in American and British films. Alec Guinness and Anthony Hopkins have both played Hitler. The first noteworthy German-produced feature to look at him was Hans-Juergen Syberberg`s "Confessions of Winifred Wagner." But the new movies by Breloer and Eichinger delve more deeply into the lives, idiosyncrasies and pathologies of the Fuehrer and his cronies.

In Eichinger`s film, Hitler is mean, headstrong and harsh. He stews in a claustrophobic catacomb with Braun, Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels and Goebbels` wife, Magda, and their six children, all of whom will die.

Hitler hides his jittery hand as he paces and sweats. His uniform is damp; a critic wrote that one could almost smell his nervous breath. His moods skitter — at times he acts like a jovial uncle, at others he`s a cornered lunatic awaiting airplanes that never arrive.

In one bizarre scene taken from the real event, Hitler dictates his will to his secretary, Traudl Junge. He leaves, and moments later an agitated Goebbels enters the room and asks Junge to record his will. She tells him she`s busy doing the Fuehrer`s.

There is an eerie humanness to Hitler`s demise as above ground the battle for Berlin unfolds. "When the war is lost, it doesn`t matter at all if the German people are doomed as well," the Fuehrer says quietly. "I wouldn`t cry a single tear about that because they wouldn`t deserve anything else." He disappears into a room and closes the door. Seconds pass. There is a bang.

" `Downfall` will be a sensation," the newsmagazine Der Spiegel wrote recently in an article that included graphics of Hitler`s bunker 15 feet below the streets of Berlin. "Eichinger succeeded in something no one was able to achieve before him. He gave the absurd drama in the concrete tomb a real face."

Jens Jessen, a film critic for Die Zeit, was less impressed.

"The actor [Bruno Ganz] speaks like Hitler. He looks like Hitler and he moves like Hitler from the old newsreels. There`s never been more Hitler in a movie theater," Jessen wrote. "But will you recognize Hitler? … How we would imagine Hitler among us today is not shown. Hitler remains an ungraspable monster whose authority and attraction is not explained by any reciprocal sympathy. The film doesn`t humanize Hitler … it just triggers astonishment. The taboo has been broken, but for what purpose?"

The frustration of moving beyond the tug of history often leads to perplexing debate in a nation that has been reunified only since 1989. Six months ago, politicians and foundations chastised Hans Ottomeyer, director of the German Historical Museum, for proposing an exhibition on Hitler and the Nazi years. It would have followed the museum`s successful show about World War I.

"The idea was heavily refused," Ottomeyer said. "People were afraid it could lead to possible Nazi worship and dangerous discussion. Politicians told me, `Why an exhibition about that monster?` I was told: `The time isn`t right. Don`t touch that subject.` Now, half a year later, these films are coming out."

He added: "Germany is prepared to take a cold look at this monster. Before, Hitler was too close in time, too close in guilt and too close in pain."

Breloer, a mischievous man tinkering with the past in his attic office, is one of Germany`s most respected directors and has spent years studying Hitler, Speer and the Third Reich. He has read more than 300 books on the subjects, he said, and riffled through thousands of pages of German and U.S. archives.

He`s especially fascinated with Speer, who before and during the Nuremberg trials was the touchstone for the Allies in understanding Hitler`s regime. The Fuehrer`s beloved architect before becoming his armaments minister, Speer accepted guilt for war crimes but denied being an accomplice to the Holocaust. Some Germans believed him; others, such as Breloer, contend he was a master opportunist who manipulated the West while assuaging his own conscience. Speer was released from prison in 1966 and died in 1981.

"Speer is very tricky," Breloer said, pushing up the butterscotch-colored rims of his glasses. "He`s like a caterpillar who turns into a butterfly in Nuremberg. He was able to reinvent himself after the war. To understand the relationship between Hitler and Speer, you must think in Freudian categories. There was a little homoeroticism, and Hitler always wanted to be an architect, but it was Speer who had the talent.

"In this young man, Hitler saw his heritage. Speer felt Hitler loved him, and often in those relationships, the loved one has more power."

Hitler`s voice has echoed through the decades in roaring speeches and through crackling loudspeakers at Nazi rallies. But Breloer discovered a 1942 tape of Hitler made by a Finnish radio technician. It is believed to be the only recording of Hitler speaking in normal tones, and it became a model for the mannerisms and rhythms of the Fuehrer as played by Austrian actor Tobias Moretti.

"What was his speech?" Breloer asked. "What did he sound like? Hitler repeated sentences and phrases, often coming back to the same ideas. I imagined what it would be like to be with this character for two to three hours."

Breloer reached for a folder on his desk. From it, he pulled still photographs from the filming of "The Devil`s Architect." The swastikas, the cut of the coats, Hitler`s mustache, the gleam off the brim of patent-leather hats — all seemed real, immediate, as if lifted from yesterday`s newspaper. Breloer leaned forward, the early-evening sun shining through his wineglass, the sounds of giggling children rising from the street below.

"I have a special responsibility to look at this history," he said. "My father and my mother didn`t do it. They hauled away the rubble and rebuilt the country after the war. They didn`t want to contemplate this history. Mine is the first generation after that with the responsibility to research. So you take all these ingredients and go back into the time machine."


Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Das Märchen von den `smart bombs`

U.S. Attacks an Iraqi City With Double-Edged Sword
Officials laud airstrikes aimed at Fallouja rebels. But civilians may pay dearly, fueling hostility.
By Patrick J. McDonnell
Times Staff Writer

September 14, 2004

BAGHDAD — Unable to enter the rebel-held city of Fallouja, U.S. forces have turned to airstrikes, the latest coming Monday. The U.S. claimed success, but images of reported civilian casualties threatened to further enrage Iraq`s Sunni Muslim population.

Columns of black smoke rose from Fallouja after the attack at 6:07 a.m. Hundreds of residents fled the city — toward U.S. checkpoints that ring the area.

In the aftermath, the familiar conflicting reports emerged. The military lauded what it called a successful strike on the network of Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant thought to be behind a wave of car bombings, abductions and other attacks in Iraq.

But officials in Fallouja decried what they said was the killing of innocent civilians. Ten houses were destroyed, at least 16 civilians were killed and more than 20 were injured, officials said.

Neither account could be independently confirmed.

Fallouja is considered the heart of Iraq`s Sunni-led insurgency, which has stymied U.S.-led reconstruction efforts and thwarted the interim government. Unable to enter the town since the spring, U.S. forces have turned to an intense bombing campaign. The strategy seems to straddle the thin line between hurting the insurgency and enraging the citizenry.

"Every time, they justify it by saying they are striking militants, but there are never any militants killed," Sheik Ahmed Abdel Ghafour, a leading member of the Muslim Scholars Assn., said Monday on Al Arabiya, an Arabic-language television network.

U.S. authorities have disclosed little about the effectiveness of the bombing runs, but on Sunday several high-ranking Marine officers described the campaign as a great success and confirmed that Zarqawi was a target.

The militant is said to be extremely wary of U.S. surveillance, be it from the sky, electronic eavesdropping or informants on the ground.

"He`s very scared," said Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, outgoing commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force near Fallouja. "He won`t be within two people of a cellphone. He protects his movements, and he`s learned how to be elusive. So we continue to search."

The airstrikes, combined with skirmishes and all-out battles on the edges of Fallouja in recent months, have killed hundreds of militants and illustrate the divisions in the insurgent ranks, said Col. John C. Coleman, chief of staff for the expeditionary force, which patrols much of Sunni-dominated western Iraq. The strikes have seriously disrupted rebel operations in the town and surrounding areas, he said.

"There`s a few more dead ones," Coleman said. "They won`t operate with impunity. They`re quite often now looking over their shoulders — in a vertical sense. They`ve varied their patterns of activities and they`re not quite as free to operate as they might like to be."

The Marines pulled out of Fallouja in April after a three-day offensive, leaving an Iraqi force in charge. The Marines have not returned, and the city of 300,000 people has in effect fallen into the hands of guerrillas.

While bemoaning Fallouja`s transformation into a guerrilla sanctuary, Marines say the pullout helped expose fissures among assorted factions — religious militants from inside and outside Iraq, loyalists of deposed leader Saddam Hussein, anti-U.S. nationalists and others.

No longer directly confronting U.S. forces, Coleman said, the rebels had been fighting among themselves, pressured by the U.S. bombing.

"When we attacked in that city, all the various factions that are represented … coalesced in a marriage of convenience — and, basically, designated us as the common enemy," Coleman said. "They were arranged in a very tight, 360-degree circle, all faced outward at us, and they were all willing to engage us in the fight."

Absent the U.S. presence, the colonel said, intense opposition has arisen to the hundreds of foreign fighters — mostly from other Arab nations — who are said to have concentrated their forces in Fallouja. Reports indicate efforts to impose a Taliban-like Islamic regime there, with women forced to wear veils and religious authorities passing civil judgment.

One indication of the factionalism, Coleman said, is the frequent nighttime gun battles in town — confrontations that do not involve coalition forces.

"There are many nights in the city when we are doing absolutely nothing there, and there`s a lot of activity," he said, noting that in the spring all fire was aimed at coalition forces. "Those same people are now shooting at each other."

In Monday`s action, U.S. officials boasted of a "precision strike" on a meeting place allegedly used by Zarqawi.

"Intelligence reports indicated that only Zarqawi operatives and associates were at the meeting location at the time of the strike," the U.S.-led multinational command said. "Based on analysis of these reports, Iraqi security forces and multinational forces effectively and accurately targeted these terrorists while protecting the lives of innocent civilians."

But the images that appeared on Arab television — of destroyed homes and people burrowing through the wreckage for their belongings — suggested that civilians had been hit.

Times staff writer Ashraf Khalil in Baghdad and a special correspondent in Fallouja contributed to this report.


Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
Informed Comment
[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Thoughts on the Middle East, History,and Religion
[/TABLE][Table align=left]

[/TABLE]

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

US Air Strikes Kill 20 in Fallujah

US air strikes on Fallujah on Monday killed some 20 persons. The US military maintained that it was targeting safe houses of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his group, Monotheism and Holy War. (Some are translating tawhid as "unity," but in Islam what is meant by tawhid is to "affirm the oneness of God" -- i.e. monotheism.) Local Fallujans complained that the air strikes hit the residential al-Shurta neighborhood, inflicting damages on apartment buildings and the markets. Hospital authorities later said there were 20 deaths, including women and children.

Kudos to Robert Burns of the AP for taking up the issue of increased US reliance on air strikes on urban residential neighborhoods as a way of combatting the guerrillas now warring against them.

Burns writes:

` Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute think tank, said Monday the Americans seem to believe that airstrikes in Fallujah will wear down the insurgents and buy time for U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces to prepare for a ground assault in the weeks ahead. "But you have to wonder whether we`re radicalizing the Iraqi civilian population" in the meantime amid claims - substantiated or not - that airstrikes are killing innocent people, Thompson said. `



Lt. Gen. James Conway, has spoken out about last spring`s US attack on Fallujah. He said he had not, himself, been inclined to attack the whole city over the killing of 4 civilian security men:

` "We felt that we probably ought to let the situation settle before we appeared to be attacking out of revenge," he told reporters. "I think we certainly increased the level of animosity that existed." `



Conway would not speculate on "how high" the decision went, to attack Fallujah, saying he had gotten his orders from Lt. Gen. Rick Sanchez. But I think the implication is that it was a political decision made in the White House. Certainly, that is what Newsweek reported at the time. Bush is said to have commanded, "Let heads roll."

Conway clearly felt that it would have been better not to besiege the city in the first place, but that once the siege was begun it should have been carried through to completion. I am not in sympathy with this sentiment, since the cost of "carrying it through" would have been hundreds more civilian deaths. As it was, the US killed over 600 persons, many of them women and children, disgusting most of Iraq and the Arab world at the kill ratio (4 Americans, 600 Iraqis).

posted by Juan @ [url9/14/2004 06:23:27 AM]http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109514648786029719[/url]

Has the US been Fighting Turkmen?

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul revealed that he threatened the US over its treatment of Turkmen in Iraq when he talked to Secretary of State Colin Powell. The Scotsman writes,



` Gul said he spoke to US Secretary of State Colin Powell ”and told him that what is being done there is harming the civilian population, that it is wrong, and that if it continues, Turkey’s cooperation on issues regarding Iraq will come to a total stop. . . We have conveyed this very openly. ... Of course we won’t limit ourselves to words. We never shy away from carrying out whatever is necessary.” `



The Scotsman also notes of the US operation in Tal Afar (mainly inhabited by Shiite Turkmen: "Reports from the area said that several ethnic Turks were killed or wounded in the operation, while thousands more were forced to flee."

Al-Hayat says that the Turkmen Front accused the US of abetting the Kurds in forcing Turkmen out of the city, and aiding Kurds to resettle there. The US military maintains that it was acting at the behest of local leaders, who said that Sunni Arab fighters had taken over the city and were displacing Turkmen Shiites.

Al-Zaman says that Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is developing a plan to deploy Kurdish troops against the Sunni Arabs in problematic cities such as Fallujah and Samarra. The problem with this strategy is that it creates hatred against Kurds in the Arab lands.

The US siege of the northwestern city of Tal Afar ended on Monday when US troops were finally able to enter the city with no opposition.

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, condemned the US operation in Tal Afar, accusing the Americans of causing "catastrophes." SCIRI, which has largely cooperated with the Americans, has a militia of some 15,000 well-trained me.

Robert Lyday writes from California:



` Some, many, or most of the guerillas in Tal Afar are in fact Turkmen. Canadian journalist, working on a book about the Turkmen of Iraq, went to Tal Afar and was taken hostage during the fighting. Apparently he is claiming that the guerillas are Turkmen, or at least some of them
are. They dropped him off with some Arab Al Qaeda types in Mosul, who severely mistreated him.

Also, a Turkish journalist was kidnapped in Tal Afar around the same and released to Turkmen authorities in Mosul. That she was released to Turkmen authorities implies she was also captured by Turkmen.

The US analysis - that the Tal Afar Turkmen are being held hostage by Sunni Arab Baathists, Islamists and foreign fighters is in serious need of revision. Note how the reporter also talks about heavy support amongst the Tal Afar Turkmen for the guerilla.

No wonder the Turkish government is so angry. My God, we are fighting Turkmen in Iraq! What a disaster!


Robert Lyday `



posted by Juan @ 9/14/2004 06:07:07 AM

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Der 1.Poll seit gut einer Woche, der eine kleine Führung für Kerry errechnet, jedenfalls bei RV`s

Investor`s Business Daily
Bush-Kerry Race Tied As RNC Bounce Fades, New IBD Survey Shows
Monday September 13, 7:00 pm ET
Ibd Staff

In IBD/TIPP`s first poll of likely voters, conducted Sept. 7-12, both men garnered 47% in a two-man race and 46% in a three-way race. In the latter scenario, independent Ralph Nader would take just 3% of the vote.

Among registered voters, Kerry holds a two-point edge over Bush, with or without Nader, the poll found.

For polls taken after Labor Day, pollsters consider "likely voters" a more accurate indicator of actual election outcomes.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
IBD/TIPP defines likely voters as adult Americans who say they are very likely to vote in November, have a high level of interest in the presidential election and have voted in every or nearly every presidential election.

Other polls show Bush ahead by four to 11 points. The latest Zogby and Fox/Opinion Dynamics polls give Bush a four-point lead. He has a five-point lead in an AP/Ipsos poll and 11 points in the latest Time magazine survey.

"The boost Bush got during the RNC and the aura that surrounded an event marked by clever speeches and hitchless execution may be fading," said Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, IBD`s polling partner.

Meanwhile, fresh questions have arisen about Bush`s Vietnam-era National Guard service, though questions also have been raised about the authenticity of documents critical of Bush. Also, U.S. casualties in Iraq have surpassed 1,000, a milestone played up by major media. And Kerry has sharpened his attacks against Bush on Iraq and the economy.

While the candidates may be returning to a dead-even race, Bush still seems to have an edge.

"In close elections such as this, the intensity of candidate support is of utmost importance," Mayur said.

"Both Kerry and Bush have been successful in winning the allegiance of more and more of their respective party`s traditional support base. However, the president has consistently drawn stronger support from his supporters than Sen. Kerry.

"Past elections have shown intensity of candidate support strongly influences voter turnout," he said.

IBD`s poll shows Bush`s intensity numbers are 25 percentage points above Kerry`s 60%.

While Bush has locked up his party`s loyalty, Kerry still has room to improve. Ninety-four percent of Republicans support Bush, while 83% of Democrats back Kerry.

Teflon President?

Despite heavy criticism from the Democratic campaign, anti-Bush independent groups such as Moveon.org, Michael Moore and much of Hollywood, Americans continue to view the president as a strong leader.

The IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index for September rose 2 points, or 4%, to 50.9, back above the neutral 50 level for the first time since May.

The index includes results from all Americans, not just likely voters. It`s made up of three components: a favorability rating, a job approval rating and a leadership score.

While all three components are up this month, the leadership gauge shot up 3.1 points, or 6%, to 56.5. That`s the biggest gain since after Bush`s 2004 State of the Union speech.

The poll also has good news for Kerry. Among independents, Kerry leads Bush by 10 points, 48%-38%. His lead is 12 points -- 51%-39% -- in battleground states.

Kerry also dominates among urban dwellers (60% vs. 31%), while Bush leads in the suburbs (54% vs. 40%) and rural areas (57% vs. 36%).

Among likely voters who are still feeling the sting of lost jobs or impending job losses, Kerry has a 2-to-1 edge (61% vs. 32%). Investors back Bush 50%-40%, but noninvestors favor Kerry by 15 points.

The zeitgeist still points to a Bush victory. Some 48% of those polled foresee Bush retaking the White House, while only 16% think Kerry will win. Another third (31%) feel the race is too close to call.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Für zwei Tage, da gestern erst spät eingestellt wurde.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004
War News for September 14, 2004 draft

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

Bring ‘em on: Car bomb at Baghdad police station kills 35 Iraqis.

Bring ‘em on: Twenty Iraqis killed in US air strikes in Fallujah.

Bring ‘em on: Two US soldiers killed, three wounded in Baghdad ambush.

Bring ‘em on: Insurgents execute Turkish truck driver in Iraq.

Bring ‘em on: Insurgents capture two Australian security contractors in convoy ambush near Samarra.

Bring ‘em on: Camp Zulu mortared again.

Bring ‘em on: Six Iraqis killed, seven wounded by US artillery fire near Hilla.

Bring ‘em on: Eight US soldiers wounded in Baghdad car bombing.

Bring ‘em on: Eight Iraqi police killed, two wounded in ambush near Baquba.

Bring ‘em on: Oil pipeline ablaze near Beiji.

How to screw up a counterinsurgency. “Even now, the get-tough approach is showing signs of backfiring. On Sunday, when a suicide bomber crippled an American personnel carrier, a gun battle broke out, followed by an airstrike by two American helicopters. At least 15 Iraqis died and 50 were wounded, including a 12-year-old-girl and a television journalist. Inside the grim and chaotic wards of Baghdad`s hospitals on Sunday, the Americans seemed to have made more enemies than friends. On Monday, the scene repeated itself in another corner of Baghdad. When three insurgents opened fire on an American sport utility vehicle, American soldiers sprayed the area with gunfire, destroying three cars and killing at least one Iraqi civilian and wounding three others.”

Another US ally alienated by Bush’s War. Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul warned the U.S. to halt military operations in the northern Iraqi town of Tall Afar, the government-run Anatolia news agency reported on its Web site. Gul said he told U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell that, if the action continues, ‘Turkey`s cooperation on issues tied to Iraq would be brought to an end,’ Anatolia reported.”

Letter from Baghdad. “I waited in the car as U.S. soldiers set up a roadblock at a major intersection. An angry American hollered at an Iraqi officer not to let any vehicles through. ‘I decide when the cars come,’ he yelled. The Iraqi cop wasn`t having any of it, and he began yelling back in Arabic until a second U.S. officer calmed them both. Just then a convoy of U.S. armored vehicles charged by. An armored tow truck was pulling a still-blazing Bradley fighting vehicle through the intersection, spreading oily residue in its wake. Some of those who had been blocked at the intersection got out of their cars to cheer. Others angrily honked their horns and ordered the celebrants to get back into their cars -- not in defense of the Americans, but because they simply are sick of the bloodshed.”

Commentary

Editorial: “Fallujah offers a stark example of what`s gone wrong in Iraq. Entrenched insurgents hold the city, giving lie to U.S. hopes of control over the country, and military actions to dislodge them amid tight urban quarters risk civilian casualties that wave the red shirt for further Iraqi resistance and world disapproval.”

Opinion: “U.S. news organizations are under constant pressure to report good news from Iraq. In fact, as a Newsweek headline puts it, ‘It`s worse than you think.’ Attacks on coalition forces are intensifying and getting more effective; no-go zones, which the military prefers to call ‘insurgent enclaves,’ are spreading - even in Baghdad. We`re losing ground. And the losses aren`t only in Iraq. Al Qaeda has regrouped. The invasion of Iraq, intended to demonstrate American power, has done just the opposite: nasty regimes around the world feel empowered now that our forces are bogged down. When a Times reporter asked Mr. Bush about North Korea`s ongoing nuclear program, ‘he opened his palms and shrugged.’”

Casualty Reports

Local story: Virginia Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: Texas Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: Iowa Marine wounded in Iraq.

Local story: Alabama contractor killed in Iraq.



# posted by yankeedoodle : 4:22 AM
Comments (5) | Trackback (0)
Monday, September 13, 2004
War News for September 13, 2004

Bring ‘em on: US troops in heavy fighting near Ramadi; ten Iraqis killed, 40 wounded.

Bring ‘em on: Thirty-seven Iraqis killed in Baghdad fighting.

Bring ‘em on: Three Polish soldiers killed, three wounded in ambush near Hilla.

Bring ‘em on: US troops launch offensive near Tal Afar.

Bring ‘em on: Four Iraqi policemen killed, three wounded in ambush near Mosul.

Bring ‘em on: Two Iraqi security guards wounded in attack on oil facility near Kirkuk.

Bring ‘em on: Five Iraqis killed by car bomb targeting US convoy near Samarra.

Bring ‘em on: Fifteen Iraqis killed in heavy fighting with US troops near Fallujah.

Bring ‘em on: Three Iraqi soldiers killed in roadside bomb ambush near Hilla.

Bring ‘em on: US patrol attacked by roadside bomb near As-Sina.

Bring ‘em on: Camp Zulu under mortar fire.

Bring ‘em on: CJTF-7 reports US troops repelled coordinated attack on Abu Ghraib prison.

Another uprising begins. “Starting Saturday night, witnesses said, insurgents fired a series of mortar shells into the International Zone, a heavily fortified area in central Baghdad where the Iraqi government and the American Embassy are based. The area is often the target of mortar fire, but rarely has the bombardment been so persistent and intense. About a dozen rounds were fired into the area through the night, said Tahir Rahim, a Pakistani who works as a chef there.”

Curfew announced in Baghdad.

General Conway sounds off. “He echoed an argument made by many Iraqi politicians and American analysts -- that the U.S. attack further radicalized a restive city, leading many residents to support the insurgents. ‘When we were told to attack Fallujah, I think we certainly increased the level of animosity that existed,’ Conway said. He would not say where the order to attack originated, only that he received an order from his superior at the time, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the overall commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Some senior U.S. officials in Iraq have said the command originated in the White House. ‘We follow our orders,’ Conway said. ‘We had our say, and we understood the rationale, and we saluted smartly, and we went about the attack.’ The Marine assault on Fallujah in April ended abruptly after three days. Conway expressed displeasure at the order he received from Sanchez to cease offensive operations, a decision that culminated in the formation of the Fallujah Brigade. ‘When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences of that are going to be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that,’ he said. ‘Once you commit, you got to stay committed.’”

Australian elections. “Last night, the first 20 minutes of an hour-long national television debate were devoted to national security, terrorism and the question of whether Australia`s support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has made the country more of a target. Mr. Latham, leader of the Labour Party, called the Iraq conflict a poor use of resources that, he said, would have been better used in the campaign against Osama bin Laden and regional terror group Jemaah Islamiyah, which is blamed for the embassy attack. ‘I have no doubt that if all the time, the effort, the money, the resources that went into Iraq had been used to break up al-Qaeda, to smash JI, to find bin Laden, the world today would be a safer place. Australia would be safer and more secure.’ Mr. Howard said the decision to attack Iraq was the right one.” First Spain, now Australia. It’s clear that one of the most disastrous effects of Lieutenant AWOL’s war is the isolation of the United States from our natural allies among the world’s parliamentary democracies because an enraged electorate will vote out leaders who support American policy..

Commentary

Opinion: “President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld still refuse to acknowledge the established facts of the case, much less respond to them. Investigations by the Army of itself have predictably stopped at the rank of colonel, while the CIA refuses to cooperate with any investigation but its own. The head of the outside panel picked by Rumsfeld to deflect calls for a more independent inquiry, James Schlesinger, spoke warmly of his "35 years of association" with him. Congress is controlled by a Republican leadership with no desire to challenge the White House and the Pentagon -- even if there were not an election fewer than 60 days away.”


Rant of the Day

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a flag officer publicly sound off about civilian decision-making during combat operations like LTG Conway. Clearly, this officer is angry.

LTG Conway’s comments are significant because of the implied criticism that the Bush administration made a foolish decision to attack Fallujah despite strong opposition from senior military officers in the field. “’We follow our orders,’ Conway said. ‘We had our say, and we understood the rationale, and we saluted smartly, and we went about the attack.’” This is the closest thing to a “told you so” I’ve ever heard from a flag officer and directed against civilian officials.

“‘When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences of that are going to be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that,’ he said. ‘Once you commit, you got to stay committed.’” Translation: “You idiots don’t know jack shit about warfare.”

More significant is what LTG Conway didn’t say. He didn’t directly mention where his orders originated, other than through his military chain of command, because as a serving officer he is forbidden by law and regulation from criticizing civilian officials. In the context of his original mission, to pacify Anbar province by working with local leaders to arrive at political solutions - which, by the way, is the doctrinally correct counterinsurgency strategy – it’s clear that LTG Conway chose his words carefully and his criticisms are aimed directly at the Bush administration.

“Conway arrived in Iraq in March pledging to accelerate reconstruction projects as a way to subdue Anbar province, dominated by Sunni Muslims. But on March 31 he was confronted in Fallujah with the killing of four U.S. security contractors, whose bodies were mutilated or burned by a celebrating mob. Conway said he resisted calls for revenge, and instead advocated targeted operations and continued engagement with municipal leaders.

"’We felt like we had a method that we wanted to apply to Fallujah: that we ought to probably let the situation settle before we appeared to be attacking out of revenge,’ he said in an interview with four journalists after the change-of-command ceremony. ‘Would our system have been better? Would we have been able to bring over the people of Fallujah with our methods? You`ll never know that for sure, but at the time we certainly thought so.’”



There’s a clear implication here that LTG Conway believes the administration’s decision to attack Fallujah was motivated more by domestic US demands for revenge than by any desire to apply a long-term pacification strategy to Iraq.

"’When we were told to attack Fallujah, I think we certainly increased the level of animosity that existed,’ Conway said.” I hope Americans listen carefully to this officer. He’s telling us that the Bush administration is incapable of comprehending the consequences of their decisions, and his Marines are paying the price in blood.


86-43-04. Pass it on.



# posted by yankeedoodle : 5:10 AM
Comments (37) | Trackback (1)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Isr sofort auf Nr.1 bei Amazon gekommen, an 4 ist Chain of Command : The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib
by Seymour M. Hersh.



Don`t mess with the Bushes

David Talbot talks to Kitty Kelley, whose scathing portrait of the Bush family has fired up the Republican camp

09/14/04 " The Guardian" -- After weeks of bracing by the Bush White House, the category 5 storm has hit: Hurricane Kitty. Bestselling author Kitty Kelley`s withering portrait of the Bush dynasty, The Family, is landing in bookstores on Tuesday - more than 720,000 copies of it. And the White House is already on high alert. "This book is fiction and deserves to be treated as such," snarled Republican spokeswoman Christine Iverson, as the RNC fired off an anti-Kelley talking-points memo to friendly media assets.

The media blowback against Kelley, author of controversial biographies of Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra, has already begun. On the Monday morning Today Show, host Matt Lauer showed how tough an interviewer he can be when not questioning presidents and other potentates, pressing Kelley on who she`s going to vote for in November ("Who`re you voting for?" Kelley shot back) and the timing of the book`s publication, weeks before the November election ("Why not? It`s relevant," countered the author, who`s been working on the book for four years).

The hottest dispute sparked by the book involves the allegation that George W Bush, who claimed to be clean and sober at the time, snorted cocaine with one of his brothers at the Camp David presidential retreat when his father was president. One of Kelley`s sources - and the only one on the record - was Sharon Bush, the deeply aggrieved ex-wife of W`s younger brother Neil. She is now in strong denial mode, even though her own publicist, who was present at a lunch where she told Kelley the story, confirms the accuracy of Kelley`s account. Nonetheless, Lauer produced the Bush divorcee after his interview with Kelley to repeat her denials.

While the Camp David coke party is getting the headlines, Kelley`s book is filled with many other tawdry stories about the Bush dynasty. Here is a family that looks "like The Donna Reed Show, and then you see it`s The Sopranos", Kelley tells Salon.

As Kelley tells it, the dynasty had respectable origins - in the form of family patriarch Prescott Bush, the distinguished, moderate Republican senator from Connecticut - but rapidly slid into cynical opportunism, skulduggery, and a mean-spirited sense of entitlement. The first President Bush is presented as a weak yes man, driven not by political vision but a savage preppy spirit of competition instilled in him by his whirlwind of a mother. But it is his wife, Barbara (whom the ex-wife of White House counsel C Boyden Gray calls "bull-dyke tough"), and their eldest son, George, who are the true pieces of work in Kelley`s book, a mother and son team brimming with such spite and ambition they would give the ruthless duo in The Manchurian Candidate the shivers.

In one of the creepier passages of the book, a family gathering from hell at Kennebunkport, Maine, Barbara is shown mercilessly baiting her dry-drunk son, then governor of Texas, as a teetotalling `Chosen One`, while he keeps pleading to skip the cocktails and put on the feed bag, and his elderly father "drools over [TV newswoman] Paula Zahn`s legs".

One of the major themes in Kelley`s book is the family`s weakness for liquor and drugs. Alcoholism, she writes, runs deeply in the family and among its victims, according to one Bush family friend, was Prescott, a "major-league alcoholic", who was in the habit of checking himself into his men`s club and country club to go on benders. And Kelley writes that George W Bush is not the only one in the first family who enjoyed illegal substances. While a student at Southern Methodist University in the 1960s, first lady Laura Bush was known "as a go-to girl for dime bags of marijuana".

But, as one of W`s Yalie frat brothers tells Kelley, it`s not the substance abuse in Bush`s past that`s disturbing, it`s the "lack of substance ... Georgie, as we called him, had absolutely no intellectual curiosity about anything. He wasn`t interested in ideas or in books or causes. He didn`t travel; he didn`t read the newspapers; he didn`t watch the news; he didn`t even go to the movies. How anyone got out of Yale without developing some interest in the world besides booze and sports stuns me." New Yorker writer Brendan Gill recalls roaming the Kennebunkport compound one night while staying there looking for a book to read - the only title he could find was The Fart Book.

According to Kelley, the Bushes aggressively maintain their all-American family image by scrubbing government files of embarrassing facts, stonewalling journalists, and terrorising critics. "Some people felt that George`s past did not seep out and embarrass him and his family," she writes of the White House`s current Bush, "because he was protected by a coterie of former CIA men with an allegiance to his father." An Austin, Texas political consultant named Peck Young told Kelley that when a woman claiming to have been a call girl from Midland showed up in Austin with "intimate knowledge" of W during his oil wildcatting days, she was approached by what she described as "intelligence types" and left town abruptly. According to Young, the men "made her realise that it was better to turn tricks in Midland than to stop breathing".

George HW Bush and wife Barbara dismissed Bill Clinton as a pathetic hillbilly when he challenged the incumbent in 1992. But, Kelley writes, Clinton was one of the few Bush opponents who knew how to back them down. As colourful stories from Clinton`s sexual past in Arkansas began to surface during the campaign, a Clinton aide began digging into the senior Bush`s own robust adultery. This included, writes Kelley, two long affairs.

The Clinton aide told Kelley: "I took my list of Bush women to his campaign operatives. I said I knew we were vulnerable on women, but I wanted to make damn sure they knew they were vulnerable too." After the eruption over Clinton`s mistress Gennifer Flowers died down, sexual infidelity did in fact become a moot issue in the campaign.

While Kelley is being savagely attacked as a tabloid sleaze queen, her book is more heavily researched and documented than Bush advocates allege. On occasion, she relies on sources that are less than reliable - inserting the story Hustler publisher Larry Flynt tried to put in media play about a girlfriend`s abortion that W allegedly paid for before it was legal. Kelley says she decided to put the story in her book after interviewing the two investigators Flynt had hired to track down the story. But despite her flaws, Kelley has vigorously pursued leads about the powerful American dynasty - from Bush senior`s shady CIA past to W`s missing National Guard records - that the rest of the media should have.

Salon spoke with Kelley on Monday afternoon at the midtown New York offices of Doubleday, her book publisher.

[Salon:] The Bush forces are coming after you very strongly. And now the media is too.
[Kitty Kelley:] Yes, they are, this is what they do, this is how they operate. It`s interesting, from talking with the media today, the European media is much less intimidated than the American press. The Americans are all saying, "well, why should we listen to you. Look at the books you`ve written." Well, excuse me, those books have stood up, I stand behind everything in those books, they`ve stood the test of time. And this book will too. So I see how this media spin is working, and I`m not surprised. You`d think the media would look at my book and follow up on it - all right, she says here they instituted drug testing in the National Guard at such and such time, let`s call up and find out if that`s true. But don`t beat me up just because I`ve come to you with almost a thousand sources. You know, I`ve gone through four sets of lawyers, because I`m dealing with a sitting president.

[S:] You`ve gone through this before, of course, when Frank Sinatra tried to block publication of your unauthorised biography of him. How would you compare the heat you felt from Sinatra and his crowd and what you`re going through now?
[KK:] It`s worse now, because there`s more at stake. With Sinatra, you just worried about getting the bejabbers beat out of you. But with the Bushes, they work on all sorts of levels to destroy the messenger so the message can`t come through. But the message is the message. The stuff I`ve done is solid. Did I get everything? No. And you know something, we better hurry and try to get all the information we can get - because this president is trying to lock it all up through executive order, which means you won`t be able to get presidential history, because the files and everything will be locked up.

[S:] You write that the Bushes are particularly good at cleansing anything in government files that will besmirch the family reputation. How does that work?
[KK:] Well, you see it on all sorts of levels, from the trivial on up. For instance, I got a copy of the Bush family tree from the Bush presidential library. And at first we just thought a couple things were left off, but it was a number of things. Mentally retarded children from one branch of the family erased. Too many divorces in one family - that doesn`t fit with the family-values image, so some ex-wives simply disappear. You could say that`s just an oversight or mistake here and there. But when you see a pattern as I`ve seen over the past years of files redacted, too many mysterious fires that destroy records, state department files simply missing, gone, National Guard files.

[S:]You also allege that the Bushes have tried to block people from talking with you and put pressure on your publisher.
[KK:] Yes, imagine the former president of the United States calling your publisher. I wrote George Herbert Walker Bush requesting an interview. He always responds to letters; he`s famous for it. He even responded to Bob Woodward for a book. But he didn`t respond to mine - he had an assistant phone the publisher of Doubleday, Steve Rubin. Imagine that pressure. All of a sudden, your publisher is told that not only does the former president of the United States not want this book to be written, he`s not going to talk, he`s not going to verify anything. Most publishers would have caved at that point. And I think Bush thought it would work.

[S:] Let`s talk about Sharon Bush - she is your only on-the-record source for the Camp David cocaine story. But she`s now gone public denying she ever told it to you. Why would she do that?
[KK:] I don`t know; my guess is she`s scared. She talked about everything with me that day, mostly about the breakup of her marriage, and how the Bushes don`t have family values. And she said to me that the affair that Neil had that broke up her marriage was aided and abetted by his parents, Barbara and George.

She was crying and crying and she said, "they let him have an affair. And I called up Barbara and threw myself on her mercy and said please, please tell him to come back home." And I said: "How can his mother tell him to come back to his wife?" And she said, "you don`t understand - they`ll do anything she tells them." But she said her mother-in-law wouldn`t do that, she was cold as ice. And she cried, "you`d think Barbara would have been more sympathetic to me, considering all the infidelities she`s had to put up with."

Now over that lunch Sharon and Lou told me that she was in the midst of an alimony battle, she was angry that she was only being paid $1,000 (£557) a month alimony. And they told me they thought that if they leaked the fact she was having lunch with Kitty Kelley to the press, the Bushes hate you so much, that will scare them. And it might be leverage for her in her divorce. And Lou said: "Well, this lunch might find its way into the New York Observer." And in fact it came out in the Observer the next week.

[S:] So Sharon Bush was using you to put some heat on the family to get a better divorce deal?
[KK:] Yes. And I understand that. And she did get a better deal. Her alimony went up to $2,500 (£1,400). So that told me something else about the Bushes and how they operate. So she got a better alimony deal out of it. But then she goes on The Today Show Monday morning to say you`re wrong. That takes nerve, to go on network TV to challenge a bestselling author.

[S:] Why would she have done that?
[KK:] Her kids. Her kids are in touch with her grandparents and they go, "mom, how could you, how could you?" I think it was pressure from her kids, coming down hard from her grandparents. Absolutely. She has three kids - one who`s still a minor, Ashley, one, Pierce, who just started Georgetown University and wants to be a politician, and then she`s got the model, Lauren. And I think kids are the first casualty, and they didn`t ask for this and just want it all to go away. They probably love their family and are just appalled at what their mother did. And Sharon was probably at a very vulnerable time, and is not quite as vulnerable now. But she got on nationwide television and denied what she said, and I have a witness.

[S:] Why didn`t you tape it?
[KK:] It was in a restaurant, I never tape in them. It`s loud and clattery. Also I knew it would probably be a sensitive interview. I don`t tape every interview, but I have a lot on tape.

[S:] In another explosive part of your book, you tell the story of a Midland prostitute peddling embarrassing stories about George W Bush who`s suddenly run out of Austin by some threatening "intelligence types". You name one source for that story. Do you have others?
[KK:] One on record, and two unnamed sources.
[S:] Why didn`t you name them?
[KK:] I don`t remember why in that case.
[S:] With a charge like that, it seems like you`d want more than one named source. I`d also want to know if the source you named, this political consultant in Austin named Peck Young, had an axe to grind, if he was a Bush hater. What made you give that story credit?
[KK:] Because he was impeccable, that source, I feel very comfortable with him.
[S:] And you believe the Bushes are capable of doing something like that - of threatening a woman who is shooting her mouth off like that? You think the family really operates that way?
[KK:] I know the family operates that way. I wish you could see the stuff that`s on the cutting room floor, that got left out of the book. There are other people who will tell you stories like that, but they won`t go on the record. And you can`t blame them. And I don`t know how to convince them, that it`s history, that it`s important. Because I can`t in good conscience tell them that. But I do feel comfortable with that story. I`m surprised by the number of people who did go on the record.

[S:] Another inflammatory passage in the book is about the girlfriend whose abortion George W Bush allegedly paid for as a young man. There again it seems like you go with one source, and it`s somebody many people don`t find credible - Larry Flynt.
[KK:] Not just him - I relied on his two detectives.
[S:] So you went and interviewed them as well?
[KK:] Yes.
[S:] Again, I`m trying to figure out your methodology and why your enemies come after you and say: "She relies on shaky sources or she`ll lump a variety of sources together, no matter how they vary in credibility."
[KK:] Yes, I`ve read that one too.
[S:] So how do you respond to that - say on this one in particular, this abortion story?
[KK:] Well, I took the public record a little further and went to the investigators and asked for their stuff, and got their stuff. I have the woman`s name, address and phone number ...
[S:] Did you make an effort to reach her?
[KK:] Of course.
[S:] And she wouldn`t talk?
[KK:] No.
[S:] But you found the two investigators credible after talking to them?
[KK:] Yeah, I did.

[S:] So your method is to leave it to the reader to make up their minds?
[KK:] Right. And to tell you how far I went.
[S:] That falls short of the standards of the New York Times, say, or the Washington Post. Why do you feel it`s legitimate to fall short of that standard?
[KK:] I don`t think that falls short of the standards of the New York Times or the Washington Post in every single instance. I think that especially the Washington Post has pushed things in the past, far beyond where I would go.
[S:] What`s an example of that?
[KK:] Janet Cooke.
[S:] Well, that was exposed as a work of fiction!
[KK:] Jayson Blair ...
[S:] But the Times and the Post were both humiliated by those scandals.
[KK:] And I would be too if you find something in my books that didn`t stand the test of time. I honestly would.
[S:]So you wouldn`t have put a story like that in unless you`d done enough work on your own to satisfy yourself that there was something there, that it would hold up?
[KK:] Right.

[S:] What do you think W will do if he loses in November? Will he happily go back to baseball?
[KK:] No. You know something that I have found out from this family after four years - he doesn`t plan to lose. They know how to win - no matter what.
[S:] What does that mean?
[KK:] That means these people can put the Sopranos to shame.
[S:] Does that mean vote stealing?
[KK:] That`s a bit overt. But nothing will stand in the way of these people winning. Nothing. You start out looking at the Bush family like it`s The Donna Reed Show and then you see it`s The Sopranos.

· David Talbot is Salon`s founder and editor in chief

· This article has been provided by Salon through a special arrangement with Guardian Newspapers Limited.
© Salon.com 2004 : Visit the Salon site at salon.com

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Sep 15, 2004


A poisonous geopolitical jungle
By Henry C K Liu

Other articles in this series:
Geopolitics in Iraq an old game
Geopolitical weeds in the cradle of civilization

While post-World War II Iraq remained safely under British imperialist control, in neighboring Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh`s democratically-elected nationalist government enacted an oil nationalization bill in 1951. Responding to a British legal challenge in the World Court against Iran and taking it up in the United Nations Security Council, Mossadegh traveled to New York to defend Iran`s sovereign right, gaining much support from the world`s nations.

US becomes entangled
Then he went to the Netherlands to defend Iran successfully at The Hague, which voted in favor of Iran in its international legal dispute with Britain. On his way home, Mossadegh also paid a visit to Egypt, where he was enthusiastically received as an anti-imperialism hero. Not surprisingly, Mossadegh was toppled a year later by a military coup engineered by the Central Intelligence Agency. The event signaled the emergence of the US as the leading external actor in the Middle East on behalf of neo-imperialism, in effect replacing Britain`s traditional imperialist role in the region. Furthermore, the Shah of Iran was now indebted to the US for his throne.

In its January 1952 issue, Time Magazine, hardly a liberal publication and a leader of the anti-communist press, nominated Mohammed Mossadegh as Man of the Year. The Time essay read in part:

"There were millions inside and outside of Iran whom Mossadegh symbolized and spoke for, and whose fanatical state of mind he had helped to create. They would rather see their own nations fall apart than continue their present relations with the West. Communism encouraged this state of mind, and stood to profit hugely from it. But communism did not create it. The split between the West and the non-communist East was a peril all its own to world order, quite apart from communism. Through 1951, the communist threat to the world continued; but nothing new was added - and little subtracted. The news of 1951 was this other danger in the Near and Middle East. In the center of that spreading web of news was Mohammed Mossadegh. The West`s military strength to resist communism grew in 1951. But Mossadegh`s challenge could not be met by force. For all its power, the West in 1951 failed to cope with a weeping, fainting leader of a helpless country; the West had not yet developed the moral muscle to define its own goals and responsibilities in the Middle East. Until the West did develop that moral muscle, it had no chance with the millions represented by Mossadegh. In Iran, in Egypt, in a dozen other countries, when people asked: `Who are you? What are you doing here?` The East would be in turmoil until the West achieved enough moral clarity to construct a just and fruitful policy toward the East."



As Time saw it, communism was producing a dual effect. It fanned anti-imperialism in the colonies while it created pressure in the West to placate Third World nationalism to keep it from going communist. On March 8, 1951, the day after Ali Razmara, Iran`s pro-Western premier, was assassinated, Mossadegh submitted to the Iranian majlis (parliament) his proposal to nationalize Iran`s oil. Within weeks, a popular wave of anti-imperialist sentiment swept him into the premiership. The British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Co had been paying Iran much less than it did the British government. Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani, a leading Shi`ite fundamentalist cleric who had been fighting the infidel British in Iraq and Iran, played a key role in the nationalization of oil in Iran. His followers had assassinated Razmara.

The Iranian crisis inspired Egypt, which followed with an announcement that it was abrogating its 1936 unequal treaty with Britain. The Egyptian government demanded the withdrawal of British troops from Egyptian soil and an end to British occupation of the Suez Canal. When Britain refused, Egypt exploded with anti-British riots, hoping that the US, which had opposed British use of force in Iran, would take the same line in Egypt. The Times essay reported that "the US, however, backed the British, and the troops stayed. But now they could only stay in Egypt as an armed occupation of enemy territory. Throughout the East, that kind of occupation may soon cost more than it is worth."

The Time essay went on:

"The word `American` no longer has a good sound in that part of the world. To catch the Jewish vote in the US, president Harry S Truman in 1946 demanded that the British admit 100,000 Jewish refugees to Palestine, in violation of British promises to the Arabs. Since then, the Arab nations surrounding Israel have regarded that state as a US creation, and the US, therefore, as an enemy. The Israeli-Arab war created nearly a million Arab refugees, who have been huddled for three years in wretched camps. These refugees, for whom neither the US nor Israel would assume the slightest responsibility, keep alive the hatred of US perfidy. No enmity for the Arabs, no selfish national design motivated the clumsy US support of Israel. The American crime was not to help the Jews, but to help them at the expense of the Arabs. Today, the Arab world fears and expects a further Israeli expansion. The Arabs are well aware that Alben Barkley, vice president of the US, tours his country making speeches for the half-billion-dollar Israeli bond issue, the largest ever offered to the US public. Nobody, they note bitterly, is raising that kind of money for them."



As the Time essay warned, winning the hearts and minds of the Arabs away from communism was made hopelessly difficult by US policy on Israel. As a pro-Republican publication, the position taken by Time was not exactly bipartisan, as the Jewish vote at the time was predominantly Democratic. Still, the warning was prescient. In pro-West Iraq, both Shi`ites and Kurds sought political influence through the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) as well as the Ba`ath Socialist Party in its early stage as a dissident organization after World War II. Between 1949 and 1955, Kurds and Shi`ites comprised 31.3% and 46.9%, respectively, of the central committee membership in the ICP. This explained partly why the US was less than sympathetic to Shi`ite and Kurdish separatist aspirations all through the Cold War. US hostility toward Iraqi Shi`ites would escalate after the Shi`ite Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Today, despite the claim of aiming to spread democracy in the Middle East, geopolitics will not permit US-occupied Iraq to accept the democratic principle of majority rule that will give political control to the Shi`ite majority.

By 1954, political instability continued in pro-West Iraq as the US tried to substitute fast-waning British dominance by creating the Baghdad Pact which was formed on February 4, 1955 as part of the US global collective security system to prevent Soviet expansion into the Middle East. Members of the pact included Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Shah-ruled Iran and Britain, with the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) participating. It was hoped that Syria and Jordan would also join to complete the anti-communist arc of pro-West countries in the region. A single voice of resistance came from Egypt. Rising Arab nationalism and popular opposition to imperialism in the entire region, ignited by regular passionate broadcasts of Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser, caused Syria to reject the Baghdad Pact. Even the young anglophile King Hussein of Jordan, who later would transform into a US puppet, had to bow to the will of his people when they took to the streets in large numbers to denounce the pact.

An anti-communist pact is born
The Baghdad Pact, known also as the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) or the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), was one of the least effective Cold War security alliances created by the US. Modeled after NATO, CENTO aimed at containing Soviet expansion by creating a defensive line of anti-communist states along the southwestern frontier of the USSR. The Middle East and South and Southeast Asia were politically volatile regions during the 1960s with the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, the North-South Korea confrontation and the Indo-Pakistan wars. The US, with its main geopolitical aim of containing communist expansion, tried to befriend all warring parties in both regions to prevent any tilt toward the Soviet Union. Members of CENTO, an anti-communist treaty organization, saw no compelling purpose to get directly involved in either the Arab-Israel or the Indo-Pakistan dispute, where communist infiltration was not obvious. In 1965 and again in 1971, Pakistan tried unsuccessfully to get assistance through CENTO in its wars with India. The Baghdad Pact trapped the US into supporting corrupt, unpopular and undemocratic regimes in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. US support for Israel was an insurmountable obstacle to the development of improved relations between the US and Arab nations, including members of CENTO. More importantly, the alliance did little to prevent the expansion of Soviet influence in the area. Non-member states in the Middle East, feeling threatened by CENTO, turned to the Soviets, especially Egypt and Syria, even though they remained hostile to communism domestically. The pact lasted nominally until the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Egypt recognized the People`s Republic of China in 1956, becoming the first Arab and African nation to establish official diplomatic relations with the communist country that the US had placed on the top of its forbidden list. Egypt`s decision on China defied US policy of containment of new China through diplomatic isolation. As a penalty, the US withdrew on July 19, 1956, its loan offer to finance the Aswan High Dam, and Britain and the World Bank followed suit immediately. In response, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956. The Soviet Union then offered an aid program to Egypt, including a loan to finance the Aswan High Dam.

Crisis over the Suez
Anthony Eden, then British prime minister, characterized the Egyptian nationalization of the canal as "theft", and US secretary of state John Forster Dulles declared that Nasser would have to be made to "disgorge" it. The French and British depended critically on the canal for transporting oil, and they felt that Nasser had become a symbol of nationalist threat to their remaining interests in the Middle East and Africa. Eden wanted to launch a military response immediately, but the British military was not ready. Both France and Britain froze Egyptian assets within their jurisdictions and prepared for war in earnest. Egypt promised to compensate the stockholders of the Suez Canal Company and to guarantee right of canal access to all ships, making it difficult for France and Britain to rally international support to regain the canal by force. The Soviet Union, the East European bloc and non-aligned Third World countries generally supported Egypt`s struggle with imperialism. President Dwight D Eisenhower distanced the US from British positions and stated that while the US opposed the nationalization of the canal, it was against any use of force. Britain, France and Israel then united secretly in what was to become known as the tripartite collusion. Israel opted to participate in the Anglo-French plans against Egypt to impress the imperialist West that the Jewish state could play a useful geopolitical role against Arab nationalism.

Secret arrangements were made for Israel to make the initial invasion of Egypt and overtake one side of the Suez Canal. The British and French attempted to follow the Israeli invasion with high-pressure diplomacy, but being unsuccessful, sent troops to occupy the canal. However, the action on the part of the tripartite collusion was not viewed with favor by the US or the USSR since military intervention to enhance isolated national interests challenged a world order of superpower geopolitical predominance in the region. Regional conflicts must not be allowed to conflict with the geopolitical pattern of superpower competition for the hearts and minds of the unaligned.

Responding to superpower pressure, the tripartite troops were withdrawn from the Canal Zone in December under the direction of the United Nations. A United Nations Emergency Force was then stationed in the Gaza Strip and at Sharm el-Sheikh and on the Sinai border in December 1956 and stayed for more that a decade until the Six-Day War of 1967. Egypt kept the canal and reparations were paid by Egypt under the supervision of the World Bank. Overall, the actions of the tripartite collusion were not considered beneficial to the campaign to spread democracy in the Cold War context because they pushed Nasser and Egypt further towards the USSR. The war over the canal also laid the groundwork for the Six-Day War in 1967 due to a lack of a peace settlement following the 1956 war, in which Egypt suffered a military defeat but scored a political victory.

Britain`s disastrous behavior in the Suez crisis of 1956 exposed its thinly-disguised, last-gasp imperialist fixation disguised as anti-communism. Israel, led by David Ben-Gurion`s hawkish faction with a pro-West, militant confrontational policy, with Golda Meir replacing the moderate Moshe Sharett as foreign minister, invaded Egypt on October 29, 1956. Sharett`s policies with regard to neighboring Arab states were characterized by vision and pragmatism, but this form of diplomacy was never given a chance by the hardliners, who were mostly fixated in the belief that "Arabs respect only the language of force", as Winston Churchill had said about the Russians. Sharett, albeit an ardent Zionist, attempted to develop policies based on constructive engagement, rather than belligerence and dehumanization, with neighboring Arab states. Sharett believed that Israel could have a special role to play in the developing nations of the world, including the Arab countries. Sharett was among the few in the Middle East who recognized that terror and counter-terror between Palestinians and Israelis would lead to an endless cycle of violence, which if not controlled by enlightened political leadership, would become a way of life that would eventually destroy both peoples. His political and diplomatic wisdom was always portrayed by the Israeli mainstream as "weak and cowardly".

By contrast, Vladimir (Ze`ev) Jabotinsky`s "Iron Wall" doctrine of Zionism that sought to expel the Arabs of Palestine by force has dominated the Israeli political scene to this day. Jabotinsky viewed Zionism as a colonial enterprise, in the same vein as British colonization of America or Australia, with Arabs as Native Americans or Australian Aborigines. Israel was to accomplish with militant Zionism what British imperialism, weakened by what Zionists viewed as the British disease of liberalism, failed to accomplish in the Middle East, which is to totally and permanently emasculate a once-proud Arab nation.

While the US opposed Anglo-French military intervention to undo Egyptian nationalization of the Suez Canal, US military strategy in the region was made explicit on January 5, 1957 by a presidential message to Congress known as the Eisenhower Doctrine, to provide military assistance to countries in the region, include the employment of US armed forces, to oppose international communism. Israel saw anti-communism in the Middle East as God`s gift to the new Jewish nation on Arab land and became a fervent supporter of the Eisenhower Doctrine, with wholesale marginalization of the Israeli left and moderates in Israeli politics. Instead of moving in the direction of the Switzerland model, as a neutral oasis in a sea of rising Arabic nationalism against "divide and rule" imperialism, contributing to the development of the region for the benefit of all, Israel presented itself as an outpost of European imperialism and US neo-imperialism, setting itself up as a hostile garrison state in a region where Jews are outnumbered by 50 to one.

Unless Israeli policy changes with a new self image and political destiny, its continued existence as a hostile nation among Arabs is not sustainable any more than neo-imperialism is sustainable in the Third World. Throughout history, the Jews have contributed greatly to the prosperity of their various adopted countries. There is no reason why they cannot do so in the Middle East, their ancestral home, except for a short-sighted, more-than-clever-by-half posture of catering to Western imperialism by claiming to be the sole European democracy in the Middle East that deserves US support. If Israel wants to stay in the Middle East, there is no escaping the need to be a genuine Middle East nation, throwing its lot in with those of other Middle East nations, rather than setting itself apart as a European transplant.

King al-Shareif al-Hussein of Saudi Arabia lived for a tribal dream of ruling Syria. According to some historians, such as Avi Shlaim and Simha Falpan, the dream for a Hashmite-controlled Great Syria was an obsession for both father and son. When this dream proved elusive, his son, King Abdullah, sought alliance with the Zionist movement to achieve his father`s dream. This tribal dream was exploited by the Zionist leadership to drive a wedge between the neighboring Arab states. Ironically, the Arab countries whose armies entered Palestine on May 15, 1948 did so partly to keep King Abdullah from gaining control of the Palestinian portion of Palestine, which had been allotted to Palestinian Arabs by UN General Assembly Resolution 181. According to historian Falpan, during a meeting with King Abdullah at Shunah, Jordan, which took place soon after Husni al-Zaim`s coup in Syria, Moshe Sharett wrote in the spring of 1949 that the king told him that "the idea of Great Syria ... [is] one of the principles of the Arab revolt that I have been serving all my life."

Falpan also wrote that the tactic of misleading Abdullah with Syria was strongly endorsed by Yigal Yadin, the Israeli chief of staff. In a consultation between the Israeli Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defense on April 12, 1949, Yidin reported: "Abdullah is more interested in Great Syria than in Palestine. This is in his blood, this is his political and military outlook and he is ready to sell out all the Palestinians in this aim. We have to know how to play this card to achieve our aim ... We should not support the plan of Great Syria but we should divert Abdullah toward this plan." This kind of tactical geopolitical scheming cannot overcome the strategic geopolitical blunder of an Israel denying the need to come to terms with the realization that for Israel to survive, it needs to accept the reality that it must become a bona fide Middle East nation, not an extension of New York, and that its acceptance by Arabs rests on its developing a genuine posture of fraternal friendship, not hostile opportunistic geopolitical calculations.

Israel`s independence
On May 15, 1948, the Israel war of independence officially began with the declaration of Israel as a Jewish state simultaneously with British withdrawal from Palestine. But Israeli military action started a month earlier. As the British prepared to evacuate, the Israelis invaded and occupied most of the Arab cities in Palestine in the spring of 1948 to fill a military vacuum. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14. Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, admitted that every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs, a deliberate policy to induce Arabs to flee Palestine en mass. The massacre at Deir Yassin on April 9, committed by commandos of the Irgun headed by Menachem Begin, was part of that policy. Begin wrote: "Arabs throughout the country, induced to believe wild tales of `Irgun butchery`, were seized with limitless panic and started to flee for their lives. This mass flight soon developed into a maddened, uncontrollable stampede. The political and economic significance of this development can hardly be overestimated." The propaganda campaign of Deir Yassin to induce panic on Arabs was so effective that the incident became embarrassingly detrimental to Israel`s international image; so much so that Israeli historians have since felt compelled to deny if not the facts, at least the policy intent, blaming the massacre on the nature of war.

Egypt, Syria and Jordan, newly independent and still weak from century-long colonial oppression, formed an ill-equipped, ill-trained and ill-led coalition army of 20,000 to move into Palestine on the side of the Palestinians against Israel`s 60,000 well-equipped, seasoned and well-led troops fresh from fighting under British command in World War II. The bloody war lasted a year until April 3, 1949 when Israel and the Arab states agreed to an armistice. Israel gained about 50% more territory than was originally allotted to it by the UN partition plan. The war created over 780,000 Palestinian refugees who were forcefully evicted from Jewish-held areas. Gaza fell under the jurisdiction of Egypt. The West Bank of Jordan was occupied by Jordan and later annexed, consistent with secret agreements made with the Zionist leadership prior to the initiation of hostilities.

Bloody end to monarchy in Iraq
In post-World War II Iraq, Nuri Said, 14 times prime minister who always took orders dutifully from his masters in London, having come down hard on Iraqi nationalists, kept Iraq from active opposition to the creation of Israel and hitched Iraq to the 1955 Baghdad Pact, a US instigated anti-communist security agreement binding Iraq to Britain, Turkey, Shah-ruled Iran and Pakistan, finally signed his own political death warrant and that of the puppet monarchy he served by supporting the 1956 Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt. Reactionary pan-Arabism took a step forward under British guidance in 1958 when on February 12, a pro-West federation between Jordan and Iraq, called the Arab Union of Jordan and Iraq, was formed with a common premier. Within five months, on July 14, 1958, a successful military coup by the Free Officers led by General Abd al-Karim Qasim overthrew the Said government. The three main components in the Iraqi army, Nasirrites, communists and Ba`athists, united and dethroned the puppet king, executed all members of the royal family for treason and even denied them of Islamic burial rites for sins against the holy. Nuri Said himself was caught two days later, trying to escape from Baghdad dressed as a woman, by a mob which tore him apart with their bare hands and left his mutilated body to be flattened by passing vehicular traffic. Collaborators with the West were cut into pieces and "burnt like lambs". Public statues of the treasonous monarch were torn down in street demonstrations so large in numbers and so euphoric in passion that the new Revolutionary Council had to proclaim a curfew to keep order. Based on that history, neither the current US-installed President Ghazi al-Yawir, a Sunni Muslim tribal chief, nor his US-appointed prime minister, Iyad Allawi, a long-time US operative, nor other members of the US-appointed interim Iraqi government, has any reason to sleep well. Already, several ministers of the Allawi cabinet have failed to physically survive their interim political appointments.

The Arab Ba`ath Socialist Party of Iraq and the Communist Party of Iraq (CPI) were the two major political parties in post-World War II Iraq. The two parties initially shared some characteristics, but irreconcilable ideological rivalry soon developed due to contradiction between egalitarian communism and hierarchical tribal culture and the internationalist support to the CPI provided by a non-Arab foreign power in the form of the Soviet Union, within the context of USSR state interests. The state-to-state relationship between Ba`athist Iraq and the USSR based on geopolitics affected the domestic strategy of the CPI and vice versa. The growing ranks of the Ba`athists were upset by communist internationalist criticism of Arab nationalism, which prioritizes Arab unity and the power politics aspirations of the Arab nation over universal social justice.

A new government of Iraq was proclaimed by General Abd-al-Karim Qasim on July 15, 1958 and the pro-West Arab Union with Jordan was immediately declared dissolved. Iraq then worked for close relations with the United Arab Republic, which had been established by a union of Egypt and Syria earlier that year. As events developed, the Ba`ath Party in Syria was forced to dissolve in 1958. In 1959, Iraq formally withdrew from the Baghdad Pact. A year later, Iraq again made claims on Kuwait as an integral part of its Basra province, while Kuwait formally received its independence as a separate nation from Britain. On June 25, 1961, Qasim officially called for "the return of Kuwait to the Iraqi homeland". In September, Qasim rejected efforts to establish political autonomy for Kurds in northern Iraq and launched a major military campaign against Kurdish separatists. These issues of Kuwait recovery and Kurdish separatism predated the Saddam Hussein government by three decades, hardly credible pretexts for Bush`s war for regime change in Iraq.

In time, a power struggle ensued between Iraqi communists and the US-backed Ba`athist faction under Qasim, who had bought Western support for his government by not interfering with the Western control of Iraq`s oil production. Qasim had tolerated Iraqi communists as a force against the Ba`athists in his government. Soon, the Ba`athists began to receive backing from US anti-communist policy. To retain US support, Qasim turned on the Iraqi communists. During the turmoil, communist casualties suffered from the US-trained Iraqi government internal security forces numbered over 5,000. An attempted anti-communist coup against Qasim was nevertheless launched on March 8, 1959 by Ba`athist Colonel Abd al-Wahhab al-Shawwaf. Backed by conservative units of the army, Shawwaf alleged that the Qasim government was dominated by communists. The coup failed. In October 1959, the Ba`athists led by al-Shawwaf made an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Qasim. Saddam Hussein, who would become president in 1979, was a member of the assassination squad. After having been shot in the unsuccessful coup attempt, Saddam fled to Syria, then to Egypt, where he studied law at Cairo University. The Iraqi Ba`athists and the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared a common interest in getting rid of the Soviet-tilting Qasim.

On February 8, 1963, the Qasim government was overthrown, with the help of the CIA, by a group of young officers who were sympathizers though not members of the Ba`ath Party. Qasim himself was executed by firing squad the following day. Two days later, on February 11, the US recognized the new Ba`athist government on the basis of its anti-communism.

Author Said K Aburish (Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge) who worked with Saddam in the 1970s, claimed that the CIA`s role in the coup against Qasim was "substantial". CIA agents were in touch with army officers who helped in the coup, operated an electronic command center in Kuwait to guide the anti-Qasim forces, and supplied the conspirators with lists of people to be killed to paralyze the government. The coup plotters repaid the CIA with access to Soviet-made jets and tanks the US military was keen on acquiring.

The Ba`athists, never having ruled any country, lacked experience in 1963 in managing the government apparatus left by British colonial rule. They focused their energy instead on eliminating communists in public office. Since many professionals and public administrators were leftists, the anti-communist campaign rendered the government inoperative. The Ba`athist government fell in November 1963 after only nine months in office, having been unable to end violent political feuding that spilled over onto the streets that in no small way was stirred up by CIA covert action, but not before another 3,000 leftists were killed, as reported in John K Cooley`s The Shifting Sands of Arab Communism. Not a single word from Western human-rights groups about these mass killings, let alone the US State Department or the White House, which four decades later listed the Iraqi gas attack on Kurdish villagers among its list of pretexts to invade Iraq. The double standard was based entirely on geopolitics. The collapsed Ba`athist government was succeeded by a pro-West government of right-wing technocrats, with CIA help.

Abd al-Salam Arif, a colonel at the time of the 1958 coup, and a rival of Qasim, became the new president, and he took steps to exclude Ba`athists from his government and brought in Nasirrite nationalists, which immediately put him on the wrong side of the US. On April 13, 1966, Arif was killed in a helicopter crash of unknown causes, and was replaced by his brother, Abd al-Rahman Arif. Iraqi relations with Western powers worsened following the Six Day War which began on June 5, 1967. Iraq gave token assistance to the frontline Arab states in the Six-Day War with Israel. Believing as most in the Arab world did that the US provided direct military support to Israel during the Six-Day War, Iraq broke diplomatic relations with Washington in protest.

On July 17, 1968, a Ba`athist coup ousted Abd al-Rahman Arif. General Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr became president and Saddam Hussein was named vice president. By 1968, Saddam had moved up the Ba`ath Party ranks and wiped out the last pockets of communist resistance in the south and north. With the domestic threat from communists under control, Iraq improved relations with the Soviet Union as geopolitical leverage against the West. As a matter of policy throughout its history, the Communist Party of the USSR repeatedly sacrificed its sister parties in other countries to enhance the geopolitical interests of the USSR as a state, consistent with Josef Stalin`s policy of socialism in one country. Global communism as an extremist movement directed from Moscow was mostly a figment of US paranoid imagination.

Ba`athist ideology takes root
Since 1968, Iraqi politics has been a one-party system dominated by the Arab Ba`ath Socialist Party of Iraq. Ba`athist ideology combines elements of Arab nationalism, anti-imperialism and tribal socialism. Its slogan is "Unity, Freedom, Socialism" - unity among Arabs, freedom from Western imperialism and socialism with Arabic characteristics. Prior to 1958, Ba`athist parties in many Arab countries were dissident political organizations struggling for recognition and popular support. Members were imprisoned by many host governments and party organs were driven underground. The Iraqi Ba`ath Party operated clandestinely against the pro-West Iraqi government while it competed for followers with the Iraqi Communist Party. This background shaped the characteristic and culture of the party. Tariq Aziz, top ranking Ba`athist and vice president of Iraq in charge of foreign relations, wrote in 1980 on the party`s clandestine revolutionary heritage: "The Arab Ba`ath Socialist Party is not a conventional political organization, but is composed of cells of valiant revolutionaries ... They are experts in secret organization. They are organizers of demonstrations, strikes and armed revolutions."

The decision by the US occupation authorities to marginalize the Ba`ath Party from Iraqi politics after the last year`s invasion was a strategic as well as a tactical error, for not only was it strategically counterproductive to destroy the only secular political organization against Islamic fundamental extremism, it was also tactically foolish because the Ba`athist cells have been trained to go underground to easily survive official persecution to create insurmountable problems for the US-imposed governing authority.

The record of governance of the Iraqi Ba`ath government had been undeniably impressive. The secularization policies gave rise to an intellectual elite, including many female professionals in all fields. "Teaching the woman means teaching the family," was a battle cry. Literacy was increased dramatically with free universal education. Party slogans such as "Knowledge is light, ignorance darkness", and "The campaign for literary is a holy jihad", were promoted. The Iraqi Ba`ath Party was a political organization of clandestinity and ubiquity. Iraqi Ba`athists throughout its history might deviate from strict interpretation of Ba`athist ideology of Arab unity, freedom from foreign domination and tribal socialism, yet Ba`athist doctrine generally set guidelines for Iraqi policy formulation, such as geopolitical non-alignment, pan-Arabism and domestic accommodation with diverse religious and ethnic groups. Iraqi Ba`athist policies, as distinct from Ba`athism in the Arab world in general, were directed toward specific Iraqi needs and problems, keeping Iraq from extreme pan-Arabism.

In 1970, after decades of unrest, the Iraqi government, barely two years under Ba`ath leadership, agreed to form an autonomous Kurdish region, letting Kurds into the cabinet. In 1971, borders with Jordan were closed as a protest to Jordan`s attempt to curb the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In 1972, Bakr nationalized Iraq`s oil industry. US, British and Dutch oil corporations lost their holdings, including the 25% share of the Iraq Petroleum Company that had been owned by US-based Exxon and Mobil. The Soviet Union, and later France, provided technical aid and capital to Iraq`s oil industry. In April 1972, in response to rising US hostility, Iraq signed a 15-year friendship pact with the Soviet Union and agreed to cooperate in political, economic and military affairs. The Soviets supplied Iraq with arms.

During the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s, a rapprochement between the Iraqi communists and the Ba`athists came about from the Iraqi government`s increasing reliance on the USSR in the face of domestic and foreign pressures. With US urging, the Shah of Iran claimed the Shatt al-Arab waterway in 1969 and seized three strategic islands in the Arabian Gulf in 1971, reducing Iraq to a landlocked position. Kurdish guerrilla and terrorist activities in northern Iraq were sponsored by Iran and the US. British/US hostility over Iraqi nationalization of the Iraqi Petroleum Company in 1972 and to Iraq`s role in the 1973 Arab War with Israel forced Iraq to tilt further towards the USSR. Clashes between government forces and Kurdish separatist groups began in March 1974 only after the Kurds received military aid from the US through Shah-ruled Iran. In 1975, a settlement of border disputes was reached with Iran to stop inciting and aiding Kurdish separatists.

Central to Saddam`s vision had always been to unite the Arab world. When Egyptian president Anwar Sadat broke ranks with Arab solidarity by signing the 1978 treaty with Israel, Saddam saw it as an opportunity for Iraq to play a leading role in pan-Arab affairs. He was instrumental in convening an Arab summit in Baghdad that denounced Sadat`s betrayal of Arab solidarity through a separate political reconciliation with Israel. The summit imposed economic sanctions on Egypt that lacked effectiveness due to Arab disunity. On June 16, 1979, Bakr was stripped of all positions and put under house arrest. Saddam became the new president, followed by a massive purge within the Ba`ath Party.

While outsiders were not privy to the real causes of Iraqi political developments, one factor was a split over a proposed union with Syria, where Regional Ba`athists predominated. Saddam gained control of the Iraqi Ba`ath Party with an adherence to pan-Arabism. National elections were held on June 20, 1980. An analysis by Amazia Baram, "The June 1980 Elections to the National Assembly in Iraq: An Experiment in Controlled Democracy", in Orient (September 1981) shows that 75% of those elected were Ba`athists, 7% women, over 50% with higher education, 40% Shi`ites and 12% Kurds. Democracy had come to Iraq two decades before the 2002 Iraqi War to spread democracy in the Middle East.

Revolution in Iran, a hostage crisis and a war
Early in 1979, the Islamic revolution in Iran took place that was to have serious geopolitical consequences for Iraq. Strong Shi`ite fundamentalist opposition against the Shah in Iran accelerated in the late 1970s as the country came close to civil war. The opposition was lead by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who lived in exile in Iraq and later in France. On January 16, 1979, the unpopular Shah was forced to flee Iran. Shapour Bakhtiar, a liberal, as new prime minister with the help of the Supreme Army Council, could not control the agitated country overflowing with theocratic activism. Khomeini returned to an Iran engulfed with religious passion on the first day of February in 1979. Ten days later, Bakhtiar went into hiding, eventually to find exile in Paris. On April 1, after a landslide victory in a national referendum on an Islamic Republic for Iran, Khomeini declared an Islamic republic with a new constitution reflecting the ideals of Islamic government. To the chagrin of US propagandists, democracy reflective of the will of the people again turned anti-US. Khomeini became supreme spiritual leader (valy-e-faqih) of Iran.

On November 4, 1979, Islamic students stormed the US Embassy, taking 66 people, the majority US citizens, as hostages. It was an event that dealt a fatal blow to the re-election efforts of president Jimmy Carter and contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan, with historic consequences to US domestic politics and foreign policy, turning the US decidedly to the extreme right. For Saddam, the Iranian revolution made him an instant darling of Washington.

Unrest among Kurds in northern Iraq intensified, inspired by unrest following the events in Iran, taking advantage of the Iraqi government`s preoccupation with renewed religious animosities between Shi`ites and Sunnis in southern Iraq linked to the rise of Shi`ite fundamentalism in Iran. Relations between the two neighboring countries, never good, deteriorated rapidly. On September 17, 1980, the agreement on Iraqi/Iranian borders from 1975 was declared null and void by Iraq, which claimed the whole Shatt el-Arab, a small, but important and rich area. Iraq claimed territories inhabited by Arabs (the southwestern oil-producing province of Iran called Khouzestan), as well as Iraq`s right over Shatt el-Arab, which the Iranians call Arvandroud.

When Iranian students took the hostages at the US Embassy, it was at first not at all clear whom they represented or what they hoped to achieve. In fact, a similar mob had briefly done the same thing nine months earlier, holding the US ambassador hostage for a few hours before Khomeini ordered him released. But this time Khomeini, in response to persistent US hostility, saw political utility in this potent symbol, and issued a statement in support of the action against the US "den of spies". The students vowed not to release the hostages until the US returned the Shah to Iran for trial, along with the billions he had stolen from the Iranian people and kept in overseas banks.

Taking on the safe return of the hostages as his personal responsibility, Carter, a committed born-again Christian, tried to pursue a peaceful resolution by gradually building pressure on Iran through economic sanctions. He ordered an embargo on Iranian oil export on November 11. Rejecting the option of immediate military action recommended by his hawkish national security advisor Zbigniew Brezezinski, as too risky to the lives of the hostages, Carter escalated tensions by freezing Iranian assets in the US. While secretary of state Cyrus Vance led official diplomatic efforts, Hamilton Jordan, Carter`s chief of staff, spent thousands of hours working secret channels at the disposal of the office of the president to end the crisis. For the first few months, the US public rallied around Carter, who had clearly made freeing the hostages his top priority. As fall turned into winter and then spring, and negotiations failed to produce a deal or even any visible signs of resolution, frustrated US public opinion demanded stronger action. Time was turning against Carter`s non-military approach.

Finally, with the Iranians showing no signs of ever releasing all the hostages, Carter, desperate, approved a high-risk rescue operation on April 11, 1980 designated as "Desert One" that had been under contingency planning for months. Despite the fact that the odds against its success were forbiddingly high, Carter ordered the mission and was disappointed when he received reports that the rescue mission by Delta Force, code named Eagle Claw, had had to be aborted in midstream due to three of the six deployed helicopters malfunctioning under desert conditions. During the withdrawal, another helicopter crashed into a C-130 transport plane while taking off, killing eight elite commando servicemen and wounding three more, without ever engaging Iranian opposition fire.

The next morning, gleeful Iranians broadcast to the whole world live footages of the smoking remains of the failed US rescue mission on Iraqi soil, a stark symbol of superpower impotence, if not incompetence. Having opposed Desert One from the start, Vance, who had been kept out of the rescue loop, resigned in protest out of principle.

Finally, in September, with the Iran-Iraq war in full steam in favor of Iraq, Khomeini`s government decided it was time to end the hostage matter. Despite rumors that Carter might pull an "October Surprise", a term coined by Republican vice presidential candidate George H W Bush, to get the hostages home before election day, negotiations dragged on for months, even after Reagan`s landslide victory on the first Tuesday of November.

The rumored "October Surprise" might have been the US hope that Saddam would act as a US proxy to punish Iran and topple Khomeini with a quick victory before the US election. Believing Iran to be too weak both politically and militarily to resist, and emboldened by the certainty that US weapon systems afforded to the Shah of Iran had been drastically degraded under Khomeini, Iraq launched a full-scale invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980 with quiet encouragement from the US less than two month before the US presidential election, in which Carter`s failure to bring the crisis of US hostages held by Iran to a satisfactory close had become a key election issue. Iraq won some initial battles, but a supposedly weak Iranian military managed to achieve surprising defensive successes and halted Iraqi advance by October, despite US help to Iraq in providing classified information on US weapon systems delivered to Iran during the Shah era. While the start of the Iran-Iraq War did not rescue Carter from election defeat, it did force Iran to start negotiating to end the hostage crisis.

An extraordinary story was filed a decade later in the April 15, 1991 New York Times by Gary Sick, Carter`s national security council staff responsible for Iran, detailing a three-way bidding contest for the release of the hostages between Iran and a clueless Carter administration, and the Reagan campaign headed by William Casey (who was to become Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director later under Reagan) through arms dealer/CIA operative Jamshid Hashemi, who had close contacts in Iranian revolutionary circles. The Reagan campaign was dealing with Iranian operatives to ensure that no deal would be reached before the US election, lest Carter should gain political advantage from a pre-election hostage release. The Reagan people were topping escalating offers made to Iran by the Carter people to induce the Iranians to hold off any deal with Carter. After long negotiations in which Reagan forces agreed to unfreeze Iranian assets, transfer money, as well as military equipment to Iran for the release of US hostages, should their man win the election, the hostages in the US Embassy were released on the inauguration of a victorious Reagan on January 20, 1981. The Reagan victory was partly paid for by the US hostages having their freedom delayed for months. The principle of "the foreign enemy of my domestic opponent is my ally" entered US politics.

The Iran-Iraq War would go on for most of the decade for its own geopolitical reasons, with the US tilting quietly towards Iraq. Still, the Reagan administration secretly sold arms to a hostile Iran all through its bloody war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988, and diverted the proceeds to the Contra rebels fighting to overthrow the democratically-elected leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The arms sales had a dual goal: appeasing a hostile Iran, which had influence with militant groups that were holding several US hostages in Lebanon, and funding an anti-communist guerrilla war in democratic Nicaragua. Both actions were in direct violation of specific acts of Congress which prohibited the sale of weapons to Iran, as well as in violation of United Nations sanctions against Iran. The rule of law and the spread of democracy fell victim to US geopolitical exceptionalism.

Israel`s preemptive strike in Iraq
On June 7, 1981, during a period in which US-Iraq relations was at an all-time high, and US and European companies were carrying on highly lucrative trade deals with an Iraq flushed with Saudi money to finance the drawn-out Iraq-Iran war, Israeli F-15 bombers and F-16 fighters bombed and destroyed the French-built Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on orders from Menachem Begin, who said he believed the reactor was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. It was the world`s first air strike against a nuclear plant. The billion-dollar 70-megawatt uranium-powered reactor, paid for with Saudi funds, was near completion, but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of radiation leak, according to the French contractor which sold the reaction to Iraq under an international non-proliferation regime. The French also maintained that the Osirak reactor was not capable of producing plutonium for bombs. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards promised independent regular inspections and French technicians were required to be present for five to 10 years following initial operation. It would not have been possible for Iraq to make an undetected fuel conversion or to misuse the fuel supplied. General Yehoshua Saguy, head of the intelligence division of the Israel Defense Force prior to the air strike, argued for continuing to try to find a non-military solution to the threat within the five to 10 years he felt Israel still had before Iraq would have its first nuclear weapons. (Ilan Peleg, Begin`s Foreign Policy, 1977-1983, Israel`s Move To The Right - New York: Greenwood Press, 1987. p 187.) Begin ordered the Osirak reactor bombed because he feared that his party would lose the next election, and he did not believe the opposition party would have the toughness to preempt production of the first Iraqi nuclear bomb. Begin told a close political advisor, "I know there is an election coming. If they [Labor] win, I will lose my chance to save the Jewish people." (p 365.) The Israeli fear of nuclear attack from neighboring Arab countries is strategically unjustified. A nuclear attack on Israel would also kill Arabs on a massive scale in the area. Five decades of Cold War superpower nuclear deterrence has established firmly the effectiveness of the principle of mutual massive destruction (MAD). The best insurance against an Arab nuclear attack on Israel is to stop the forced evacuation of Palestinian Arabs from Israel. The Arabs want the land occupied by Israel back to enjoy, not destroy it with radiation.

Harvard nuclear physics professor Richard Wilson, who visited the reactor after the attack, argued that preemption is a dangerous game. The world faces unprecedented threats from terrorism. If they involve weapons of mass destruction, many people argue that we cannot wait until there is a specific threat, but must consider preemptive strikes. But we must be careful. Non-technical commentators often start with technically incorrect premises, and build up a case for preemptive strikes that is as dangerous as it is incorrect. Wilson visited the nuclear research reactor in Iraq on December 29, 1982 and visually inspected the reactor (which had been only partially damaged) and its surrounding equipment. To collect enough plutonium using Osirak would have taken decades, not years. French nuclear reactor engineer Yves Girard was aware of the carelessness of the Canadians in supplying a heavy water reactor to India, and the French in selling the Dimona reactor to Israel without insisting on any international safeguards to prevent military application. In 1975, Girard refused to help to supply a heavy water moderated reactor to Iraq. Instead, the Osirak reactor was moderated by light water, and therefore deliberately unsuited to making plutonium for bombs. The day after the bombing, Begin incorrectly described Osirak with misleading specifications of the Israeli Dimona reactor.

The chairman of the Board of Governors of the IAEA, Bertrand Goldschmidt, was reportedly livid about the Israeli bombing, as were many other experts. While as a French Jew who had worked on the Manhattan project, he had especial sympathy for Israel, he was concerned that Israel had damaged attempts by the international community, with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to control the nuclear genie which had been let out of the bottle in 1945 by the US.

The Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor infuriated the Iraqis. They had followed international rules openly and accepted international inspections, and yet were bombed by a country which allowed no inspections of its own nuclear plants. Wilson reported that Iraqi fast-track for bomb development began in July 1981, after the Israeli bombing. The preemptive strike seemed to have had the opposite effect to that intended. Worse still, Israeli and US intelligence deluded themselves into thinking that once bombed, the threat of Iraqi bomb-making was over. The Iraqi bomb program became generally known in 1991, and a number of experts wrote about it in the Israeli journal New Outlook. The general consensus was that the Israel had no justification in bombing Osirak.

Iraq, the rogue regime, swallowed the attack stoically. Yet the incident radicalized Iraqi politics. One shudders to think what the US would have done if one of its nuclear power plants operating under NPT rules had been attacked. Yet this precedent of bombing an Iraqi nuclear power plant built under an operative international non-proliferation regime by a Western power had been set in the name of proliferation preemption, giving justification and impetus to secret nuclear programs that are much more difficult to monitor.

With the widespread acknowledgement by many experts that the components for assembling a nuclear device can easily be purchased in the open market for around $2 million, or a fully-assembled device for $20 million, the claim of US Vice President Dick Cheney in his acceptance speech in the Republican Convention in New York in late August this year that the illicit global nuclear proliferation network had been effectively shut down by Bush`s "war on terrorism" sounded like a pitch to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to a gullible public. An iron rule of terrorism is what goes around, comes around from geopolitical blowback. One cannot exterminate terrorism any more than mosquitoes, except by reordering the ecosystem. Until the inequities of the socio-political ecosystem are eliminated, terrorism will continue to exist.

On the state level, one glaring lesson from the second Iraq War is that non-possession of nuclear weapons has become an open invitation to enemy invasion. Every government now will realize it is its sovereign responsibility to avail itself of nuclear capability for the defense of the nation, because the absence of nuclear capability has been turned into negative proof of intent to acquire such capability, which in turn provides the justification of reckless preemptive attack, undeterred by nuclear retaliation on the attacker. Nuclear proliferation will continue until all nuclear powers pledge themselves to the doctrine of no-first-use and the doctrine of no military force against non-nuclear nations.

An Iranian counter-offensive in 1982, aided by fresh US arms from the Iran-Contra deal, reclaimed much of the territory lost to Iraq during the early phase of the war. On November 26, 1983, Reagan signed a secret order instructing the US government to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to ensure that Iraq was not defeated in its war with Iran. At this time, the Reagan administration openly acknowledged its awareness that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and that chemical weapons were used almost daily against Iranian forces (Washington Post December 30, 2002), but for geopolitical reasons chose to avoid making an issue out of these intelligence reports. In December 1983, Donald Rumsfeld, as secretary of defense, was sent by Reagan to Iraq to meet with Saddam to offer whatever assistance might be required. In November 1984, Reagan restored full diplomatic status to Iraq after meeting in Washington with Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz.

The New York Times reported on August 29, 2002 that from 1982 to 1988, the US Defense Intelligence Agency provided detailed information to Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments.

In March 1986, the US and Britain blocked all UN Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq`s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US was the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq`s use of these weapons. The US Department of Commerce licensed 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. In May 1986, the US approved shipment of weapons-grade botulin poison to Iraq. In late 1987, Iraq began using chemical agents against Kurdish separatists in northern Iraq.

Four major battles were fought in the Iran-Iraq war from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas were used, in violation of the Geneva Accords of 1925. By this time, the US Defense Intelligence Agency was heavily involved with Saddam`s military in battle-plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post-battle debriefing. In the last major battle of the war, 65,000 Iranians were killed, many with poison gas.
TOMORROW: The burden of being a superpower

Other articles in this series:
Geopolitics in Iraq an old game
Geopolitical weeds in the cradle of civilization

Henry C K Liu is chairman of the New York-based Liu Investment Group.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact [e-mail] for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 by The Nation
Taking Dives for the Bush Mob
by David Corn


I used to have sympathy for Colin Powell, the supposed adult among the neocon kindergartners who pushed this nation into war in Iraq. Now I see him merely as a boxer who has taken one too many dives. And he has been doing so to protect a no-good mob.

The on-the-ground reality in Iraq was darn ugly last week: cities beyond the control of the United States military or the new Iraqi government, rising American casualties (not only did the number of dead American GIs top 1000, the rate of US troops killed in action has increased), and mounting civilian deaths in US military attacks. So the Bush White House--looking to keep the bad news from Iraq from shaping the presidential campaign in these final weeks--dispatched Secretary of State Powell to the Sunday morning shows to do what he does best: put forward a reassuring and realistic spin. On Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked if Iraq was heading toward civil war. Powell calmly replied:

It`s always a possibility, but I don`t think it`s going to happen. We have leaders in the interim government who represent every element of Iraqi society. We have Kurd, Shiias, Sunnis. They`re all working together. What are they working together for? To end the insurgency, to build up Iraqi security forces so they can take care of their own security and to get ready for an election with the help of the coalition and the help of the U.N. These are dedicated men and women who get up every day in order to keep their country together, to work for a political outcome that reflects the will of the Iraqi people and they`re being attacked by insurgents.

And so it is a difficult time. There`s an insurgency that has to be put down, and when that insurgency is put down, what the people of the world will see are Iraqis in charge of their own destiny, moving toward an election that will provide for a representative form of government, the creation of a constitution and the ratification of a constitution, and it`s going to be something they`ll be able to be proud of.

And so this is a difficult time as this insurgency still rages and as we work to bring it under control, but it will be brought under control. It`s not an impossible task. And when it has been brought under control, you`ll find that the forces that keep Iraq together are stronger than the forces that pull it apart.

In other words, there is nothing about which to worry. When George W. Bush--or Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz--make such an argument, it seems self-serving and absurd. But Powell has that magic touch: he concedes the problems, promises it will work out in the end, and those who want to believe can believe. He certainly is no Scott McClellan, who has the air of a waiter carrying far too many plates and is but a second away from dropping the entire load.

But Powell can only prettify the mess so much. And he can only do so by resorting to disingenuousness. On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Powell, "John Kerry now says that Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. Is any of that right?" Powell replied:

It is a war that succeeded in removing a dictator--a dictator who was a threat to his own people, a threat to the region and a threat to the international order. And so we did the right thing at the right place and the right time to get rid of that dictator and to give the Iraqi people a chance for peace.

A threat to his own people, the region and the international order. Hmmm, what did Powell leave out? Oh, yeah--a threat to the United States. Before the war, Bush and his gang claimed that Saddam Hussein`s regime was a "direct" and "immediate" threat to the United States. Bush, citing Hussein`s supposed possession of significant amounts of weapons of mass destruction, repeatedly called it a "grave and gathering threat." But now Powell is helping the Bush rewrite history by airbrushing out of the picture the primary rationale for the war.

Wallace did not ask Powell about the absent WMDs. But Russert did. And Powell countered with a falsehood. The exchange:

RUSSERT: As you well know, the primary rationale given for the war was weapons of mass destruction. The deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz, said this, that "...we settled on that issue because everyone could agree on it. ... There actually had been three fundamental concerns. One was WMD. Two was support for terrorism. The third was the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself..."--the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people--"is a reason to help the Iraqis but not a reason to put American kids` lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did." In light of the fact there`s no direct connection between Iraq and September 11, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, is it worth 1,000 American lives and 7,000 wounded and injured simply because Saddam was a bad guy?

POWELL:....The president decided that action was appropriate in Iraq and he put together a coalition of many nations that joined in that judgment and joined in that fight. Because, one, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction in the past. He had an intention. He had a capability. And all of the intelligence available to us and to the internal community led us to the conclusion that he had stockpiles and it was a reasonable conclusion at that time.

That is not true. Not all the available intelligence said there were stockpiles. The prewar National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (flawed as it was) did not state there were biological weapons stockpiles; it only maintained there was a biological weapons development program (and, as subsequent events demonstrated, it had overstated that conclusion). And the Defense Intelligence Agency reported in the fall of 2002 there it had found no evidence that Iraq was maintaining stockpiles of chemical weapons. Powell is being quite slippery here. He is suggesting the evidence was clear and undeniable on the question of WMD stockpiles. But here he is putting his reputation for probity to misuse and selling a phony cover story.

Powell is quite useful for Bush. He plays the role of the administration`s reasonable man. He comes out and says there was no direct connection between Iraq and the terrorists of 9/11 (undermining Cheney`s repeated suggestions such a link existed). He says Kerry would deal with the terrorism in a "robust" fashion (undercutting Cheney`s charge that the United States would be hit again by terrorists should Kerry be elected). Asked if he would have supported the invasion of Iraq had he known there were no WMD stockpiles there, he says, maybe, maybe not (distancing himself slightly from the Bush line). But he refuses to concede that he and the Bush administration misrepresented the case for war. "I`m disappointed; I`m not pleased"--that`s all he says about the misleading intelligence on Iraq`s WMDs that he infamously cited at his prewar briefing of the UN Security Council. (When it comes to Iran`s nuclear program, Powell notes that the Bush administration is working closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He does not remind the audience that the administration he serves trashed the IAEA when the IAEA was conducting inspections in Iraq during the months before the invasion.)

In Washington, there has long been a debate within foreign policy circles hostile to Bush and his war: is it better for Powell to be in the administration or not? Does Powell occasionally apply the brakes to the administration`s recklessness? Is he a mature, multilateralral influence? My view is that if there are benefits from his tenure at the State, they are outweighed by an obvious cost: how he helps the Bush bunch stay in power and, thus, enables the neoconservatives. In the final weeks of the election, I expect the public will see more of Powell than Wolfowitz. He will reassure. He will have plausible-sounding explanations for the screw-ups. He will offer soothing words about the "challenges" ahead. In doing all this, he will be fronting for the neocons. And if Powell does his job well, they will have more four more years to impose upon the world their miscalculations. It seems Powell never grows tired of kissing the mat for the Bush gang.

DON`T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN`S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).

Copyright © 2004 The Nation

###

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 by the Globe & Mail / Canada
America`s Hearts of Darkness
Will a Documentary About John Kerry have Any Affect on the Upcoming US Election?
by Liam Lacey


One of the most anticipated political documentaries of the fall, director George Butler`s Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry, has its world premiere this evening at the Toronto International Film Festival. The occasion will launch a campaign that will see it released in U.S. theatres on Oct. 1, the day after the first presidential debate, as the election enters its homestretch.

The setting may be almost as significant as the timing: As Frank Rich wrote in The New York Times on Sunday, the film is being launched "in a country that is itself synonymous with anti-Vietnam protest." Canada, which declined to join George W. Bush`s "coalition of the willing" in invading Iraq, again stands on the side of American dissent.

This isn`t the first time there has been a Canadian angle to American political documentaries. Michael Moore`s Bowling for Columbine was produced by Canadians. Both Moore and Butler are enthusiastic about their attachment to Canada. The distributors of Going Upriver are Canadian as well. Jeff Sackman, founder of Going Upriver`s Canadian-based ThinkFilm distribution company, hopes it gets the kind of media bounce that turned Michael Moore`s Fahrenheit 9/11 into a $100-million box-office hit, though Butler`s film is less of a populist rouser.

Moore`s film was rhetorical, agit-prop, satirically broad. Butler`s film is sobering, a reminder for lessons in American foreign policy never properly learned, of lies perpetuated. Rather than name-calling or mocking Kerry`s opponents, Butler raises and dignifies the level of discourse about Vietnam, its effect on American politics and life. In a wiser world, Going Upriver should also put to rest the question of Kerry`s war record.

Butler, who is about Kerry`s age, avoided the draft by joining a group called Vista, similar to the Peace Corps. He worked as a photographer, then a filmmaker. He is responsible for the 1977 hit, Pumping Iron, which first made Arnold Schwarzenegger a household name (he predicted in the late seventies that Schwarzenegger would some day become the governor of California). He also made the archival documentary, The Endurance: Shackleton`s Legendary Antarctic Expedition (2000), rated as one of the year`s top 10 film by several critics.

I reached Butler on his cellphone during his drive to the airport to fly to Toronto. Butler is quick to say he dismisses any idea that he made the film in an attempt to influence voters.

"I made this film because I`m an old friend of John Kerry`s, because he`s a person of great character, like Schwarzenegger and Shackleton, and because it`s a good story," he said. "Anyone who sets out to influence an election with a film is a fool. I set out to make a very good movie which may have some unpredictable effect.

"When I made Pumping Iron, the effect was that 100,000 gyms instantly opened across the United States."

Going Upriver provides an inspiring portrait of Kerry, both for his war record and his antiwar record. Butler, using a vast store of archival material, including some 35 years (or 40 hours) of film and numerous photos he took of Kerry, shows the future presidential candidate in Vietnam. He shows him returning and becoming a leader of the Vietnam veterans` antiwar movement and his riveting television testimony, at age 27, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

And it shows the scene where Kerry and the other vets protested the war by throwing their medals and ribbons over a fence onto the Capitol steps. Kerry`s opponents have harped on this moment, insisting it indicates Kerry`s questionable patriotism.

Rather than some flippant defiant gesture, the sequence is wrenching: The men dedicate their medals to dead friends; one-by-one they testify to their bitterness and disillusion at being asked to murder and risk their own lives for a false cause, before tossing their honours away.

"I don`t tell anyone what to think. I leave it up to their choice," says Butler. "I show what happened. When you see the bullets flying in Vietnam, you know he was there and in great danger."

We learn, from his colleagues, how Kerry volunteered to command one of the patrol boats that were sent up the Mekong River, surrounded by dense jungle, mostly for the purpose of drawing enemy fire. Swift boats in Kerry`s division had casualty rates as high as 90 per cent; he himself was wounded three times in a four-month period.

Much of this footage has never been seen before, though the real breaking news is the history of John O`Neill, a Vietnam vet and co-author of the anti-Kerry book, Unfit for Command, and one of the leaders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization responsible for running a series of attack ads questioning Kerry`s war record. O`Neill first began attacking Kerry in 1971 as part of President Richard Nixon`s dirty tricks campaign. We listen in to the White House tapes as Nixon plots with later Watergate conspirators, Bob Haldeman and Charles Colson, to counteract Kerry`s charisma with O`Neill.

"O`Neill hasn`t changed in 30 years. He`s just better paid now," says Butler.

© Copyright 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Fotos aus dem Irak. Achtung teilweise erschreckende Bilder
Photographer: "Ghaith Abdul-Ahad"

[Joerver]

[Table align=right]

BAGHDAD, IRAQ - SEPTEMBER 12. Dead and
injured Iraqi civilians are seen lying in
the street on September 12, 2004 in Haifa
Street, Baghdad, Iraq. Fighting broke out
in the early hours of September 12, 2004
as explosions shook the centre of Baghdad
with U.S. helicopters opening fire at
targets in the area and a U.S. armoured
vehicle was seen on fire. Over 20 people
were killed and 48 injured in a day of
heavy fighting more than two months since
the handover of power in Iraq.
[/TABLE]




[Table align=left]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Der Artikel kommt mir zwar als etwas überholt vor,ist aber amüsant geschrieben und zeigt ein grundsätzliches Problem Kerrys, er denkt zu viel.

Bush-Messer

"It`s terrorism, stupid"

Von Georg Mascolo, Washington

Er ist der Mann fürs Grobe in der US-Regierung. Vizepräsident Cheney teilt gern aus - wie jetzt gegen den Bush-Herausforderer John Kerry. Der musste sich vorhalten lassen, er sei ein Sicherheitsrisiko für das Land. Die Bush-Leute setzen im Wahlkampf alles auf die Karte Terror. Und Kerry weiß nicht so recht, wie er kontern soll.

Mit Richard Cheney ist so ziemlich kein Journalist gern auf Reisen. "Steckt die Stifte weg, es gibt nichts zu berichten", blafft er das halbe Dutzend Berichterstatter, die es üblicherweise mit ihm aushalten, schon mal an. Um besondere Verbindlichkeit war der mächtigste Vizepräsident in der Geschichte der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika noch nie bemüht.

Auch wenn es ihm an Charme mangelt, immer mehr Journalisten ziehen im Gefolge Cheneys inzwischen durch das Land. Denn der Vize machte die wirklichen Schlagzeilen. Wer dem bekennenden Hardliner zuhört, kann erkennen, wie die Republikaner ihren Traum von weiteren vier Jahren im Weißen Haus zu verwirklichen gedenken.

Frei nach Bill Clintons Zauberformel "It`s the economy, stupid" ("Es geht um die Wirtschaft, Dummkopf") heißt das Bush/Cheney-Motto: "It`s terrorism, stupid". Das Land ist sicherer geworden, sagt der Präsident jeden Tag mindestens fünfmal in seiner knappen Wahlkampf-Standardrede. Die Entmachtung Saddam Husseins feiert er gerade so, als habe der nur durch einen blöden Zufall am 11. September nicht selbst im Cockpit eines der Todesflieger sitzen können.


Jede Woche analysiert SPIEGEL ONLINE die Chancen des US-Präsidenten für seine Wiederwahl. Für die Werte der letzten Wochen hier klicken...
Cheney, von dem der "Economist" schreibt, er trete auf wie ein sowjetischer Generalsekretär an einem seiner schlechten Tage, agiert noch schamloser: Die längst widerlegte These, dass Saddam al-Qaida unterstützte, benutzt er ebenso ungehemmt wie die Behauptung, John Kerry mache Amerika unsicher. "Wenn wir die falsche Wahl treffe, besteht die Gefahr, dass wir erneut angegriffen werden", sagt Cheney. Er könnte auch sagen: Wählt Kerry und ihr sterbt.

Eine unredliche, schmierige Angstkampagne sei das, wüten die Demokraten. "Jetzt haben sie eine Grenze überschritten", reagierte der sonst nie um einen flotten Spruch verlegene John Edwards ziemlich ratlos, als Cheney Kerry zum Sicherheitsrisiko erklärte. Der Kandidat für das Amt des Vizepräsidenten tut sich so schwer wie Kerry selbst, die Attacke zu kontern. Wenn es um die nationale Sicherheit geht, hatten es Demokraten nie leicht, den Republikanern die Stirn zu bieten.

Wahrscheinlich hatten Kerrys Leute einfach darauf gehofft, dass selbst Cheney jene Grenze nicht überschreitet, die bisher als unantastbar galt: Mehr als ein "Wechselt nicht die Pferde mitten im Rennen", hatten sich selbst Kriegspräsidenten wie Abraham Lincoln oder Franklin D. Roosevelt im Wahlkampf nicht zu sagen getraut. Als Sündenfall gilt bis heute ein Fernsehspot, der wegen heftiger Proteste nach nur einmaliger Ausstrahlung wieder von den Fernsehschirmen verschwand: Präsident Lyndon B. Johnson ließ den Feuerball einer Atomexplosion aufsteigen - wer Barry Goldwater wählt, wählt Krieg, hieß die Botschaft.

Aber Bush kann es nur mit dieser Art Wahlkampf versuchen, viel mehr hat er nicht zu bieten. Und so haben seine Strategen sich entschieden, alles auf die eine Karte zu setzen. Cheney darf wüten, während das Weiße Haus die Geschichte vom starken, visionären Führer zeichnet, der wie einst Ronald Reagan den Kommunismus jetzt für Amerika den Dschihadismus niederringt. Selbst für Wahlkampf-Zeiten wird dick aufgetragen: "Dieses noch junge Jahrhundert wird das Jahrhundert der Freiheit", ruft Bush auf seinen Wahlkampfveranstaltungen.

Wo so viel Pathos bemüht wird, kann jede Nachdenklichkeit schnell als sträfliche Unentschlossenheit abgetan werden. Etwa wenn John Kerry laut darüber nachdenkt, ob Bushs Weg der Terrorismusbekämpfung falsch und der Einmarsch im Irak das Problem nicht nur noch größer gemacht haben.

So wird der Vietnam-Veteran Kerry (der einmal einen Wahlkampf mit dem Satz: "Ich verstehe etwas vom Töten" für sich entschied) Stück für Stück demontiert. Die Republikaner haben schließlich schon immer an die Wirksamkeit von negative politics, also einer ordentlichen Schmutzkampagne, geglaubt. Kritische Fragen nach Cheneys Tabubruch beantwortet Bush erst gar nicht- meist tut er einfach so, als höre er sie nicht.

Es läuft derzeit ganz gut für den Titelverteidiger. "Ich wünschte, er wäre als Präsident nur halb so gut wie als Wahlkämpfer", stöhnt Rahm Emanuel, ein ehemaliger Clinton-Berater. In allen Umfragen liegt Bush vorn und die Gefahr, die von dem republikanischen Feldzug in Sachen Terrorismus ausgeht, haben inzwischen auch die Demokraten begriffen. "Wenn es am Ende um die nationale Sicherheit geht, glaube ich nicht, dass Kerry gewinnen kann", sagt selbst sein Parteifreund, Senator Evan Bayh.

Alles Quatsch versichern Kerry Freunde wie Gouverneur Tom Vilsack. "Kerry hatte einen guten Juli und George Bush hatte einen guten August", tut er die leichte Panik, die derzeit im demokratischen Lager herrscht, ab.

Seit Clinton nur Stunden vor seiner Herz-OP Kerry 90 Minuten lang Nachhilfe im Führen eines erfolgreichen Wahlkampfes erteilte, müht sich Kerry um den Neustart seiner Kampagne. Er hat aufgehört, ständig von Vietnam zu reden und windelweiche Erklärungen abzugeben, dass er im Fall Irak alles genauso wie der Präsident (aber irgendwie netter) gemacht hätte. Jetzt ist harte Konfrontation und ein Wechsel zu den innenpolitischen Themen Amerikas zu erkennen.

Um den Krieg im Irak geht es bei Kerry auch jetzt noch, aber eher so: Nutzlos ist er, gefährlich und er hat 100 Milliarden Dollar gekostet, die für Kindergärten, Schulen und die marode Gesundheitsvorsorge fehlen.

An den Journalisten muss sich der früher so redselige Kerry derzeit vorbeimogeln - um nicht wieder einmal einen Kurswechsel erklären zu müssen. "Der Mann hat früher Präsident Bush dafür kritisiert, dass er nicht genügend Pressekonferenzen gibt, und jetzt muss ich mich hier rumrangeln, um nur eine Frage zu stellen", empört sich der mitreisende "New York-Times"-Korrespondent.

Ist das Rennen also schon gelaufen? Hat Kerry die Chance verspielt sich den Amerikanern, die an ihrem Präsidenten zweifeln, als überzeugende Alternative in schwierigen Zeiten zu vermitteln.

Selbst manche Demokraten scheinen aufgegeben zu haben. "Clinton ist sogar unter Äther besser als Kerry", ätzt öffentlich ein Funktionär im Swing-Staat Ohio. Aber Vorsicht! An den sicheren Sieg glaubt nicht einmal Bushs Chefstratege Karl Rove: "Es bleibt ein Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen bis zuletzt", prophezeit er. Die Republikaner haben ihre Bosheiten verbraucht, ihre Botschaft vermittelt. Wenn Kerry endlich überzeugend auftritt, wenn er den Menschen vermitteln kann, wohin er Amerika führen will (und woran er selbst glaubt), hat er nach wie vor eine gute Chance. Der Bush-Messer kommt deshalb heute zu folgendem Schluss: Solide 2 zu 1 für Bush in einem Rennen, das bis zuletzt spannend zu bleiben scheint.

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 14, 2004
Q&A: Progress in the War on Terror

From the Council on Foreign Relations, September 14, 2004

Three years after 9/11, has progress has been made in the war on terror?

Yes, most analysts say, but precisely how much is unclear. On the home front, considerable steps have been taken to protect potential targets, especially airplanes and airports. Terrorism experts say more still needs to be done. Internationally, the United States has captured and killed scores of al Qaeda members in Afghanistan and elsewhere, says Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at St. Andrews University in Scotland. But enlistments in al Qaeda and like-minded organizations, some experts contend, keep pace with those setbacks. "Every time someone is captured, there are people to take their place," says Matthew Levitt, a terrorism analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

In which areas has the most substantial progress in homeland security been made?

Among its achievements, the Bush administration cites:

* Government reorganization: In 2002, the White House created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by merging 22 separate agencies into a single department whose primary mission is to protect the U.S. homeland. "The creation of the Department of Homeland Security is a major step in the right direction," says Warren Rudman, former senator (R-N.H.) and co-chair of the Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored independent task force on homeland security. But, he adds, "it will take time before we see total coherence in coordinating our [counterterrorism] efforts."
* Aviation security: DHS officials say air travel is significantly safer than it was on 9/11. Hardened cockpit doors have been added to all large passenger aircraft. Inspectors have conducted vulnerability assessments at the nation`s 75 largest airports. All checked baggage in U.S. airports is screened for prohibited items. Thousands of federal air marshals have been deployed in airports and aboard flights. All passenger names for domestic flights are checked against an expanded terrorist watch list.
* Border security: In 2003, DHS launched the US-VISIT system, which links government databases to provide information to port-of-entry officials and consular officials overseas and creates a database of pictures and finger scans of everyone entering the United States with a non-immigrant visa.
* Biological attack security: A new environmental monitoring system, BioWatch, monitors air samples in major U.S. cities, providing early warning of a potential bioattack. The program is intended to work in coordination with BioShield, a program to ensure that vaccines, drugs, and medical supplies are ready for rapid distribution in the event of an attack.

Which areas lag behind?

* Port security: DHS says that every U.S. port has submitted a security plan that includes security measures such as surveillance cameras and background checks on port workers. But, says Rudman, "We`ve got a long way to go on port security." According to Stephen E. Flynn, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow for national security studies at the Council and author of "America the Vulnerable: How Our Government is Failing to Protect Us from Terrorism," insufficient resources are devoted to securing U.S. ports. "The federal government has made available $500 million in grants to support the protection of our seaports," Flynn says. "That`s what we`re spending every three days in the war on Iraq. If this is the new threat ... then we`re not waking up to that reality to recalibrate."
* First responders: According to Flynn, those with the responsibility to respond first in a major terrorism emergency still lack the necessary funding and training. Communications problems persist; local police and fire departments, county, state, regional, and federal emergency response teams cannot easily exchange information. And protective gear and portable detection equipment needed in a chemical attack is in short supply.
* FBI and intelligence reform: The 9/11 Commission report recommended the establishment of a national intelligence director "to oversee national intelligence centers on specific subjects of interest across the U.S. government and to manage the national intelligence program and oversee the agencies that contribute to it." On August 2, 2004, President Bush established such a position, but the extent of the new director`s powers and responsibilities remain unclear. The president also announced on August 27, 2004, the creation of a National Counterterrorism Center intended to build on the intelligence-gathering capacity of the current Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) and to better coordinate counterterrorism operations. CIA (www.cia.gov) and FBI reforms are currently being debated in Congress.

What progress has been made internationally?

* Intelligence-sharing among governments. This has clearly improved since 9/11, experts say. "We`re getting much better cooperation from the French, from the Germans, from the Saudis, from the Pakistanis," says Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Lots of people who are not huge fans of the war in Iraq, for example, are nevertheless providing substantially more cooperation on intelligence, on busting up terrorist rings now than they ever did in the past," he says.
* Afghanistan and other operations against Qaeda leaders: After 9/11, the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban from Kabul and disrupted the operations of senior Qaeda leadership. Many Islamist fighters were killed or captured, but many escaped, including Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his primary deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Overall, the Bush administration says the war against al Qaeda has eliminated 70 percent of the network`s leadership and captured or killed 3,400 of its members. But Ranstorp says it is difficult to know how significant these statistics are, because it`s not clear who all the captured leaders are--the names are largely classified--or the roles they played in the network. Nor is it clear how rapidly killed or captured leaders are replaced in the organization and how quickly new members are recruited.
* Tracking weapons of mass destruction (WMD): The Bush administration created the Proliferation Security Initiative, an international partnership of more than 60 countries to share intelligence information about WMD and interdict lethal materials in transit. Through this effort, U.S. and other intelligence agencies exposed a worldwide, Pakistan-based smuggling network that sold nuclear technologies and equipment to outlaw regimes, including Iran, Libya, and North Korea. Libya, a U.S.-classified terror state, has since renounced its WMD programs. On the other hand, "There`s still tremendous concern that terrorists can get access to WMD, either cooperatively through state sponsors of terrorism or by stealing them," Levitt says.
* Counterterrorism in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, and Pakistan: These countries, which before September 11 often turned a blind eye to the activities of domestic Islamist militants, are now going after terror organizations. "But there is still so far for these regimes to go," Levitt says.
* Terrorism financing. Nearly $140 million in terrorist assets have been blocked in more than 1,400 accounts worldwide since 9/11, according to a White House fact sheet. But much more needs to be done to halt the flow of funds to terrorists, especially in Saudi Arabia, whose citizens remain the largest single source of Qaeda funding, according to a recent Council-sponsored independent task force on terrorism financing.

What larger issues must be solved?

* Formulating a long-term, strategic approach. Many experts say the Bush administration has not yet developed a strategy to counter the ideology of the Qaeda movement and radical Islam and to prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging. "We need a real long-term strategy to press for reform in countries that are incubating radicalism," says Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Our gains are fleeting because we aren`t doing nearly enough to deal with the global radicalization of a lot of young Muslim men." Many experts argue that addressing the challenges posed by al Qaeda`s ideology is as important as attacking the organization with military force, adds Levitt. "We have yet to really get in the game of the war of ideas," he says.
* Getting Iraq right. In its current state, with its poorly secured borders, multiple armed factions, and surplus of weaponry, "the environment in Iraq is perfect from a terrorist perspective," Ranstorp says. The war in Iraq "exacerbated the global war on terror to some extent by radicalizing a lot of individuals locally and helping in mobilization," he adds. "We`ve cut off sanctuary to terrorists in Afghanistan and given them new sanctuary in Iraq," says Benjamin. If Iraq is to become a net gain in the war on terror, experts say much more needs to be done to get the situation there under control.

How likely is another large-scale terrorist attack inside the United States?

Most experts expect one. In a recent interview, Lee Hamilton, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, said, "We interviewed a very large number of people, over 1,000 people.... I don`t think a single one of them said, `Do not expect an attack.` Everybody expects an attack." Hamilton added: "We think the terrorist has: No. 1, the intent to kill as many Americans as possible, and No. 2, the capability. And that equation makes for a real danger."

Why hasn`t there been an attack inside the United States since September 11, 2001?

It`s impossible to say. It may be because the war on terrorism has made strategic planning for Qaeda and other terrorists more difficult, experts say. Or it may be that al Qaeda is taking time to plan an attack on a scale at least as significant as the 9/11 attacks. "They may be going for something spectacular again," says Rudman, "something that will take time to properly plan."

Is it possible to define victory in the war on terrorism?

It`s not clear. "There will be no clear endgame--it`s a long-term struggle," Ranstorp says. "The war will be won when we no longer fear catastrophic terror attack," says Benjamin. "We`ll never be able to go back to where we thought we were on September 10, 2001, but if we can come up with a strategy to limit the appeal of radical Islam to moderate Muslims, we can live in a world where the threat of terrorism is no longer the center of our politics." Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, says the goal is "not the elimination of terrorism; that`s beyond our power. It`s the reduction of it so it no longer drives our lives, it no longer drives our national security strategy."

--by Sharon Otterman, staff writer, cfr.org, and Willis Sparks, research associate, cfr.org

Copyright 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 15, 2004
THE BILLIONS
Seeing Threat to Iraq Elections, U.S. Seeks to Shift Rebuilding Funds to Security
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 - The Bush administration said Tuesday that it would shift nearly 20 percent of its aid budget for Iraq out of reconstruction projects and into security and short-term job-creation programs, acknowledging that continued violence threatened its plans for elections early next year.

The State Department said it would ask Congress to take $3.46 billion out of the $18.4 billion aid package that President Bush signed into law last November and authorize its use to speed the training of Iraqi security and police personnel, create temporary public works programs and take other steps to help stabilize the country. Officials said the money would come mainly from allocations to build water and sewer systems and repair and modernize the electricity system.

"The security situation presents the most serious obstacle to reconstruction and economic and political development in Iraq," said Marc Grossman, the under secretary of state for political affairs, who said the decision was made after consultations with American military commanders and the Iraqi government.

"They decided that without a significant reallocation of resources to the security and law enforcement sectors, the short-term stability of Iraq would be compromised and the longer-term prospects for a free and democratic Iraq undermined," Mr. Grossman said at a news conference.

The announcement came on a day when attacks by insurgents left dozens of Iraqis dead, many of them police recruits or officers, underscoring the difficulties and dangers of trying to shift all responsibility for security to the Iraqis. Saboteurs also temporarily knocked out much of the nation`s electricity supply through an attack on an oil pipeline.

Democrats said the change was evidence that the administration was grasping for solutions to a situation that was not getting any better.

The announcement "is an acknowledgment that the current situation in Iraq represents a failure of the administration`s plan to bring stability and democracy to Iraq," Rep. Nita M. Lowey of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee`s foreign operations subcommittee, said in a statement.

Noting that the United States has spent only about $1 billion of the $18.4 billion aid package so far while the costs of the war are running billions of dollars a month, she added: "This has not gotten results. Right now, violence is rampant, many Iraqis live without basic services, and we have failed to turn Iraqi public opinion in our favor."

But the administration`s package appeared likely to win the backing of the Republican-controlled Congress. Rep. Jim Kolbe, the Republican from Arizona who is chairman of the foreign operations subcommittee, backed the proposal. He said that it was unclear whether the money could make a difference quickly enough to ensure that elections go ahead as planned, but that the United States had to recognize that it was facing a different situation from what it had assumed when it drew up reconstruction plans last year.

"The most important thing is that it clearly represents a shift that reflects the reality of what we`re dealing with today," Mr. Kolbe said in an interview.

The plan was drawn up by John D. Negroponte, the United States ambassador to Iraq. It would decrease the budget for water and sewer projects by $1.935 billion, electricity projects by $1.074 billion and purchases of refined oil by $450 million.

Those reductions would go to offset a $1.8 billion increase in spending on law enforcement and security. Among other programs that would get more money are several intended to create jobs. Iraq`s official unemployment rate is 28 percent.

The administration is also requesting that Congress allocate $360 million to wipe from the books Iraq`s debts to the United States, which total $4.4 billion but have been largely written off. It also asked for $450 million to invest in Iraq`s oil production capacity, with a target of increasing production by 650,000 barrels per day within 10 months.

Mr. Grossman said the money would ultimately help train 45,000 new Iraqi police officers and 16,000 new border control officers, plus a substantial number of additional Iraqi national guardsmen. Robin Raphel, the department`s coordinator for Iraq assistance, said that in the short run the money would help increase capacity at police training academies to 5,300 per month from 2,300. She said the Iraqi police force now numbers 82,000.

The officials said that there was still plenty of money available for rebuilding projects in the long run, but that the immediate focus had to be on creating conditions that would allow elections to proceed as planned.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 15, 2004
CAMPAIGN 2004: THE BIG ISSUES
Taxes for an Ownership Society

When President Bush talks about an "ownership society," hold on to your wallet. The slogan, like "compassionate conservative" before it, is sufficiently vague to mean many things to many people, and the few details that Mr. Bush has provided - bolstered home ownership and new tax-sheltered savings plans - seem innocuous enough. But in tax terms, "ownership society" means only one thing: the further reduction, if not the elimination, of taxes on savings and investments, including taxes on dividends and on capital gains on stocks, bonds and real estate. That, in turn, means - by definition - a shift in the tax burden onto wages and salary - or, put more simply, a wage tax.

The regressive results would be appalling. The richest 1 percent of Americans earn just about one-tenth of total wages and salary, but almost half of all income from savings and investments - income that would be largely, perhaps entirely, untaxed in an "ownership society." In contrast, taxable wages and salary make up almost all of the income of most Americans.

The Bush camp has been floating the idea that what the president is getting at is a consumption tax. But the administration is not talking about a true consumption tax, which would apply to spending regardless of where the money comes from - from your paycheck, cashing in your stocks and bonds, selling your house, or borrowing. It is, in effect, talking about a tax on wages.

Properly understood, a consumption tax is intended to increase national savings by making it relatively more attractive to save than to spend. The main argument against it is that it hits hardest at low-income and middle-income families, who tend to spend most of what they earn. But as Peter Orszag, an economist at the Brookings Institution, pointed out in a recent speech at Georgetown University, Mr. Bush`s de facto wage tax would be the worst of all worlds: it would have all the regressive aspects of a consumption tax and none of its potential for increasing national savings.

When Mr. Bush talks about new tax-favored savings accounts, he never mentions that most people don`t even take advantage of existing plans. They won`t be turned into owners by new tax breaks for interest, dividends and capital gains. To turn Americans into owners requires a strong economy in which the people who work for a living share in the benefits of economic growth.

A good place to start would be to tackle the obstacles to sustained growth that currently exist, like spiraling health care costs, dependence on foreign oil and the administration`s mania for unaffordable tax cuts - in short, to reverse, not intensify, the trends in the current economy.

In the past nearly three years of economic recovery, the distribution of economic growth has become more skewed than at any other time in modern memory. Currently, 47 percent of growth is flowing to corporate profits, by far the largest share during any of the other eight post-World War II recoveries. Fifteen percent goes to wages and salary, the smallest share of economic growth in more than 50 years. To make matters worse, the share of compensation that is devoted to health and pension benefits is far larger during this recovery than any other, representing a further squeeze on the wages and salaries of ordinary Americans. In 2004, take-home pay as a share of the economy dropped to its lowest level since the government started keeping records in 1929.

All of this would make the drive for a wage tax laughable, if only it were a joke. And yet, when he says "ownership society," a wage tax is exactly what Mr. Bush is driving at.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 15, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Mr. Bush`s Glass House
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

President Bush`s paramount problem with his National Guard years is not that he took shortcuts in 1972. The problem is that he still refuses to come clean about it.

So as we get caught up in the furor over the CBS documents showing favoritism in President Bush`s National Guard career, let`s bear a couple of points in mind.

First, there`s reason to be suspicious of some of those CBS documents. For starters, a Guard veteran who worked with the supposed author, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, tells me that abbreviations in the documents are wrong. He says group should be "GP" rather than "GRP," there should be no period after "Lt," and Mr. Bush`s Social Security number should have been used rather than his old service number.

Second, we shouldn`t be distracted by our doubts about the CBS documents. There`s no doubt that Mr. Bush benefited from favoritism. The speaker of the Texas House has acknowledged making the call to get Mr. Bush into the National Guard.

Does any of this matter? What troubles me is less Mr. Bush`s advantage three decades ago and more his denial today. Mr. Bush`s own route to avoid the draft underscores the disparities in America, yet his policies seem based on a kind of social Darwinism in which the successful make their own opportunities. His tax cuts and entire outlook seem rooted in ideas not of noblesse oblige, but of noblesse entitlement.

One fall day in 1973, when Mr. Bush was a new student at Harvard Business School, he was wearing a Guard jacket when he ran into one of his professors. The professor, Yoshi Tsurumi, says he asked Mr. Bush how he wangled a spot in the Guard.

"He said his daddy had good friends who got him in despite the long waiting list," recalls Professor Tsurumi, who is now at Baruch College, part of the City University of New York. Professor Tsurumi says he next asked Mr. Bush how he could have already finished his National Guard commitment. "He said he`d gotten an early honorable discharge," Professor Tsurumi recalls. "I said, `How did you manage that?` "

"He said, oh, his daddy had a good friend," Mr. Tsurumi said. "Then we started talking about the Vietnam War. He was all for fighting it."

Professor Tsurumi says he remembers Mr. Bush so vividly because he was always making outrageous statements: denouncing the New Deal as socialist, calling the S.E.C. an impediment to business, referring to the civil rights movement as "socialist/communist" and declaring that "people are poor because they`re lazy." (Dan Bartlett, an aide to Mr. Bush, denies that the president ever made these statements.)

So in this muddle of competing witnesses and suspect documents, what do we actually know about Mr. Bush and the Air National Guard?

It`s pretty clear that Mr. Bush got into the Guard because of his name but did a fine job in his first few years. "He was rock-solid as a pilot," Dean Roome, a pilot in the same unit who was briefly Mr. Bush`s roommate, told me. Mr. Roome adds that Mr. Bush inquired in 1970 about the possibility of transferring to Vietnam but was turned down - and, if so, that`s a credit to him.

Then, in 1972, something went badly wrong. My hunch is that Mr. Bush went through personal difficulties that he`s embarrassed to talk about today. In addition, Mr. Roome suggests that changes at the Texas air base were making it more difficult for junior pilots, so sometimes Mr. Bush`s only chance to fly was as a target for student pilots - not the most thrilling duty.

For whatever reason, Mr. Bush`s performance ratings deteriorated, he skipped his flight physical, he stopped flying military planes forever, he transferred to Alabama, and he did not report to certain drills there as ordered. The pilots I interviewed who were in Alabama then are pretty sure that Mr. Bush was a no-show at required drills.

The next year Mr. Bush skipped off to Harvard Business School. He still had almost another year in the Guard he had promised to serve, but he drifted away, after taxpayers had spent $1 million training him, and he never entirely fulfilled his obligations.

More than three decades later, that shouldn`t be a big deal. What worries me more is the lack of honesty today about that past - and the way Mr. Bush is hurling stones without the self-awareness to realize that he`s living in a glass house.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Die Likudisierung der Welt
Das wahre Vermächtnis des 11. Septembers: Bush übernahm die rigiden Ansichten Scharons
von Naomi Klein
ZNet 10.09.2004
Der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin war am Montag so genervt über die Kritik an seiner Handhabung der Beslan-Katastrophe, daß er die ausländischen Journalisten anfuhr: “Warum treffen Sie sich nicht mit Osama bin Laden, laden Sie ihn doch nach Brüssel oder ins Weiße Haus ein und führen Gespräche”, “keiner hat das moralische Recht, uns zu sagen, wir sollen mit Kindermördern verhandeln”. Mr. Putin ist kein Mann, der sich gern von außen Ratschläge erteilen läßt. Schön für ihn, daß es noch einen Ort gibt, wo man ihn vor aller Kritik in Schutz nimmt: Israel. Am Montag bereitete der israelische Premierminister Ariel Scharon dem russischen Außenminister Sergej Lavrow einen warmherzigen Empfang. Bei dem Treffen ging es um eine engere Zusammenarbeit beim Kampf gegen den Terror. “Terror ist nicht zu rechtfertigen, und es wird für die freie, anständige, humanistische Welt Zeit, sich zu vereinen und diese schreckliche Epidemie zu bekämpfen”, so Scharon. Unbestritten. Worum es beim Terrorismus im Kern geht: Man wählt bewußt Unschuldige als Ziel aus, um seine politischen Zielsetzungen zu verfolgen. Jede Behauptung der Täter, sie kämpften für Gerechtigkeit, ist eine moralische Bankrotterklärung und führt uns direkt zur Barbarei von Beslan. Beslan - der sorgfältig ausgeklügelte Plan, hunderte Kinder an ihrem ersten Schultag abzuschlachten.

Mit Sympathie allein sind die überschwenglichen Solidaritätsbekundungen israelischer Politiker für Rußland diese Woche allerdings nicht zu erklären. Neben Mr. Scharons Statement ist da die Aussage des israelischen Außenministers Silvan Schalom, das Massaker zeige, “es gibt keinen Unterschied zwischen Terror in Bersheba und Terror in Beslan”. Und die (israelische Tageszeitung) Ha’aretz zitiert einen nicht namentlich genannten israelischen Offiziellen mit den Worten, die Russen “begreifen jetzt, daß sie es nicht mit einem lokalen Terrorproblem zu tun haben, sondern (das Ganze) ist Teil einer globalen Bedrohung durch islamistischen Terror. Diesmal sollten die Russen auf unsere Vorschläge hören”. Die unterschwellige Botschaft ist nicht mißzuverstehen: Rußland und Israel befinden sich im selben Krieg, bei dem es weder um Palästinenser geht, die auf das Recht auf einen eigenen Staat beharren noch um Tschetschenen, die ihre Unabhängigkeit einfordern, vielmehr um die “globale Bedrohung durch islamistischen Terror”. Und das erfahrenere Israel nimmt für sich in Anspruch, die Kriegsregeln festzulegen. Da wundert es auch nicht, daß es sich um dieselben Regeln handelt, die Mr. Scharon gegen die Intifada in den besetzten Gebieten anwendet. Scharon setzt primär voraus: Alles, was die Palästinenser wollen, ist Israel vernichten. Aus dieser Grundannahme leiten sich weitere ab. Erstens, jedwede israelische Gewalt gegen Palästinenser ist ein Akt der Selbstverteidigung und im Interesse des Überlebens des Staates Israels notwendig. Zweitens, jede Person, die das absolute Recht Israels zur Vernichtung des Feinds infrage stellt, ist ein Feind: die Vereinten Nationen, Regierungschefs, Journalisten, Peaceniks.

Putin horchte auf - soviel ist klar. Andererseits ist es nicht das erstemal, daß Israel die Rolle des Lehrmeisters spielt. Am 12. September 2001 wurde der damalige israelische Finanzminister Benjamin Netanjahu gefragt, welche Auswirkungen die Terroranschläge gegen New York und Washington am Tag zuvor auf die Beziehungen zwischen Israel und den USA hätten. Er antwortete: “Das ist sehr gut”. “Nun, nicht sehr gut, aber es wird umgehend Sympathie erzeugen”. Die Anschläge, so erklärte Mr. Netanjahu, “stärken das Band zwischen unseren beiden Völkern, denn wir erleben den Terror schon über soviele Jahrzehnte, aber nun haben die USA (selber) einen massiven Aderlaß des Terrors erlebt”. Jeder weiß, mit dem 11. September wurde geopolitisch eine neue Ära eingeläutet - zusammengefaßt in der sogenannten “Bush-Doktrin”: Präemptiv-Kriege und Angriffe auf die “Infrastruktur des Terrors” (sprich: auf ganze Staaten). Man beharrt darauf, der Feind versteht nur die Sprache der Gewalt. Treffender wäre es jedoch, diese rigide Weltsicht als “Likud-Doktrin” zu bezeichnen. Am 11. September wurde die Likud-Doktrin, die zuvor nur auf Palästinenser angewendet wurde, von der mächtigsten Nation der Welt aufgegriffen und global angewandt. Man könnte dieses wahre Vermächtnis des 11. September auch als ‘Likudisierung der Welt’ bezeichnen.

Um nicht mißverstanden zu werden: Mit dem Ausdruck ‘Likudisierung’ ist nicht gemeint, daß Mitarbeiter der Bush-Administration in Schlüsselpositionen für Israel tätig werden - auf Kosten der Interessen der USA (“duale Loyalität”, ein immer populäreres Argument). Nein, auf was ich vielmehr anspiele: Am 11. September sah sich George W. Bush nach einer passenden politischen Philosophie um, die sein Leitstern sein sollte bei seiner neuen Rolle als “Kriegspräsident”. Er fand sie in der Doktrin des Likud. Begeisterte heimliche Likudniks im Weißen Haus stellten sie ihm sogleich bereit, bequem fix und fertig. Selberdenken unnötig. Und seither setzte das Weiße Haus unter Bush diese Logik mit gänsehauterregender Konsequenz um - im “Krieg gegen den Terror”. Sie war die Leitphilosophie in Afghanistan und im Irak und könnte auch auf den Iran und Syrien ausgeweitet werden. Es ist nicht nur so, daß Mr. Bush die Rolle Amerikas als die eines Beschützers Israels gegenüber der feindlichen arabischen Welt definiert. Vielmehr sieht er die USA inzwischen in der gleichen Rolle, in der sich Israel sieht - konfrontiert mit derselben Bedrohung. Gemäß dieses Denkens befinden sich die USA in einem nie endenden Überlebenskampf gegen irrationale Kräfte, die sich mit nichts weniger zufrieden geben werden als der totalen Vernichtung (ihrer Feinde).

Und nun hat das Likudisierungsdenken also auch Rußland erreicht. Bei jenem Treffen am Montag mit Auslandsjournalisten hat Putin “klargestellt”, so der Guardian, “daß er das Streben nach tschetschenischer Unabhängigkeit für die Speerspitze einer Strategie tschetschenischer Islamisten hält - unterstützt von ausländischen Fundamentalisten - ganz Südrußland zu unterminieren und selbst noch in den muslimischen Gemeinden anderer Landesteile Unruhe zu stiften. “Muslime gibt es entlang der Wolga, in Tartastan und Baschkortostan... Es geht einzig um die territoriale Integrität Rußlands”, sagte er (Putin).” Früher machte sich nur Israel Sorgen, ins Meer getrieben zu werden. Stimmt, in der islamischen Welt ist ein Anstieg des religiösen Fundamentalismus zu verzeichnen - dramatisch und gefährlich. Das Problem ist nur, daß die Likud-Doktrin keinen Raum für Warum-Fragen läßt. Es ist uns nicht erlaubt, darauf zu verweisen, daß der Fundamentalismus seine Brutstätte in gescheiterten Staaten hat, wo Kampfhandlungen die zivile Infrastruktur systematisch zerstören - was den Moscheen Gelegenheit gibt, sich für alles verantwortlich zu fühlen, von der Bildung bis zur Müllabfuhr, siehe Gaza, Grosny, Sadr City. Mr. Scharon sagt, der Terrorismus sei eine Epidemie, “die keine Grenzen, keine Zäune, kennt”. Stimmt nicht. Terror gedeiht innerhalb der illegalen Grenzen, die Besatzung und Diktatur errichtet haben; er schwärt hinter “Sicherheitswällen”, die Imperialmächte bauen; diese Grenzen überschreitet der Terrorismus, über diese Art Zäune springt er - um in jenen Ländern zu explodieren, die für die Besatzung und Herrschaft verantwortlich sind bzw. Komplizen.

Ariel Scharon ist beim ‘Krieg gegen den Terror’ nicht Oberkommandierender; dieser zweifelhafte Ruhm gebührt George Bush. Aber am dritten Jahrestag des 11. September verdient Scharon doch Würdigung als spiritueller/intellektueller Guru dieser Katastrophen-Kampagne (ein schießwütiger Yoda für alle Möchtegern-Luke-Skywalkers da draußen, die für die epische Gut-Böse- Schlacht trainieren). Wer wissen will, wie es weitergehen wird und wohin uns die Likud-Doktrin künftig führt, soll den Guru doch in seine Heimat begleiten. Israel - ein angstgelähmtes Land mit einer unwürdigen Politik, ein Land, in zorniger Verleugnung der Brutalität, die es tagtäglich verübt, eine Nation, umlagert von Feinden und auf der verzweifelten Suche nach Freunden. Freunde - eine Kategorie, die Israel sehr eng definiert. Freunde sind jene, die keine Fragen stellen und denen Israel großzügig die gleiche moralische Amnestie angedeihen läßt. Dieser Blick in unsere kollektive Zukunft ist übrigens das Einzige, was die Welt von Ariel Scharon lernen sollte.

Naomi Klein ist Autorin von: ‘No Logo’ und ‘Über Zäune und Mauern’ (‘Fences and Windows’)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Withdrawal of coalition forces would lead to fragmentation

Ewen MacAskill
Wednesday September 15, 2004

The Guardian
Withdrawal of the US-led coalition forces in Iraq would lead to the rapid fragmentation of the country, according to Iraq specialists yesterday.

Gareth Stansfield, co-author of Future of Iraq: Democracy, Dictatorship or Division, published this year, said: "I think the only thing preventing a civil war in Iraq is the coalition forces on the ground. If the US withdraws, the interim government is not in a position to control Iraq."

Amatzia Baram, professor of Middle East history at the University of Haifa, was even blunter, predicting that the interim Iraqi prime minister, Ayad Allawi, would not be able to hold the towns and cities in the Shia south or Sunni central region of Iraq or even the capital.

He recalled that in 1921 a British diplomat had written to London warning that the newly installed king of Iraq would end up as king of only Baghdad if British forces withdrew. Dr Baram said that if the coalition forces pulled out, Mr Allawi "would not be prime minister of Baghdad but prime minister of the Green Zone [the heavily fortified former palace of Saddam Hussein]."

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the invasion, the debate is shifting to whether it would be better for Iraqis if the coalition forces were to organise a phased withdrawal in the near future.

After a series of interviews and polling in Iraq, the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies said "the single unifying theme espoused by Iraqi politicians will be to invite the US to leave Iraq" after the election planned for January.

Those in favour of withdrawal argue that the coalition forces are the main source of Iraq`s problems, encouraging attacks by insurgents inspired by nationalism, religion or revenge.

The argument against pulling out was put succinctly yesterday by Ellie Goldsworthy, head of the UK armed forces programme at the Royal United Services Institute in London, who said: "There is no perfect option available. The least worst option and the only honourable one is to stay put as long as the Iraqi authorities want us there and to keep a low profile as much as we can."

A former major, she suggested greater involvement of the UN after an election as a way of reducing the US-British presence but predicted that international troops will be on the ground for a long time to come, just as in the Balkans.

Mr Stansfield, a fellow of the Middle East programme at the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, which put out a report this month warning of the possible fragmentation of Iraq, is extremely pessimistic about Iraq.

He said there was an urgent need to re-assess the mission objectives of the British force in southern Iraq which he regarded as being extremely vulnerable.

"I think the British forces are in a very precarious position in terms of manpower on the ground to garrison the south. They are at the mercy of a whole range of political and social factors."

He said the vulnerability of the British forces would be exposed if there was to be an uprising in Basra comparable to Falluja or Najaf.

He was sceptical about the planned January election. "The idea of democracy in Iraq any time soon is laughable," he said, suggesting the likelier outcome was the US and Britain remaining to support an authoritarian regime.

He said one plus from the presence of international troops was that they offered a focal point for the insurgents and helped take some of the heat from the interim government. Withdrawal would be seen as a victory by the insurgents and "that is when it would get nasty", opening up a struggle for power.

Dr Baram agreed: "In short, I see disaster. It will become like Afghanistan. I do not think withdrawal is a viable option."

As an alternative to disintegration, he suggested that the coalition forces remain but eventually operate as a mobile force from desert bases, able to drop into a crisis at short notice at the request of an Iraqi government.

"Although it is bloody and tragic for everyone at present, I would say you need about a year or two to bring on an Iraqi security force that can hold its own," Dr Baram said. "Even then, it would need British and US forces for another two or three years."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Aftershock and awe

Leader
Wednesday September 15, 2004

The Guardian
Bloodshed, mayhem and horror in Baghdad and Falluja are the daily fare of post-Saddam Iraq, but fallout from the war continues to spread far beyond. The latest sign came as Spain got together with France and Germany, demonstrating that the "Old Europe" so disparaged by Donald Rumsfeld is alive and kicking - and no more willing now than it was last year to back a US strategy that is manifestly not working. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, host of Monday`s mini-summit in Madrid, sought to make a very deliberate point as he turned his back on his conservative predecessor, José Maria Aznar, a staunch ally of George Bush, to embrace Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder, leaders of Europe`s anti-war camp. Tony Blair was conspicuously not invited to dinner at the Moncloa Palace, further evidence that his much-vaunted strategy of "trilateralism" linking London, Paris and Berlin is unlikely to have a very promising future as long as differences persist over an issue as big as Iraq.

It is true, as British ministers often argue, that it is perfectly possible to agree on European economic reform or the EU constitution, or even on Iran, while disagreeing about the way ahead in Iraq. Conversely, it is also possible to disagree about subsidies to French farmers or the size of German budget deficits while agreeing that the case for war based on the threat from WMD was exaggerated. But the persistence of such profound European divisions - despite June`s UN resolution mandating a multinational force to support the Baghdad interim government - make it even harder to sort out the postwar mess, as shown by disagreements within Nato about modest plans to train Iraqi security forces.

Mr Zapatero came to power on the back of last March`s Madrid train bombings and, having pledged to withdrew the troops committed by Mr Aznar, did just that, delighting the vast majority of Spaniards who opposed the war. Thus the frosty response from Washington to his suggestion that others should follow his example. Mr Zapatero`s sensible retort is that the fight against terrorism does not require conventional war - and certainly not a preventive one - but better coordinated intelligence and legal action combined with efforts to combat the causes of fanaticism. The apparently uncontrollable events in Iraq are now putting an almost intolerable strain on anyone, including the British government, who continues to justify the war. It is very hard to disagree with Mr Chirac`s comment as the Old Europeans gathered: "We have opened a Pandora`s box that none of us are able to close."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Hell on Haifa Street: bomb kills 47 in Baghdad
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad

15 September 2004

Pools of blood, broken glass and discarded shoes were spread across Haifa Street in Baghdad yesterday after a bomb exploded outside a police station, leaving a crater seven feet across.

The blast tore through a crowd of young men who were trying to get jobs in the police force. Forty-seven people were killed and at least 114 wounded.

Charred body parts hung from trees and birds killed by the blast lay scattered across the street in one of Baghdad`s busiest shopping districts, which has become a front line in the spreading insurrection against Iraq`s US-backed government.

The explosion was caused by a suicide bomber who blew up a car filled with artillery shells. "There was a loud explosion and suddenly my body was covered in blood," said Yassin Hamid, 21, as he lay in a nearby hospital. "I decided to join the police to help my family."

Mahdi Mohammed, whose barber shop was close to the centre of the explosion, said: "I could see burning people running in all directions."

Haifa Street is on the west side of the Tigris river, in the heart of the city. With long rows of tower blocks hiding a maze of narrow alleyways and rundown mud-brick buildings, it is home to some of Baghdad`s worst criminal elements. The blocks make it perfect for ambushes, and its residents ­ many of whom are former Baathists from Saddam Hussein`s home town ­ are among the country`s most implacable enemies of the US occupation forces. Saddam spent some of his formative years in this tough neighbourhood and he named the area after himself ­ Saddamiyat al-Karkh ­ in the 1980s after an effort at urban regeneration.

It is a frequent base for mortar attacks on the nearby heavily fortified area formerly known as the Green Zone, where US forces, Western diplomats and the interim Iraqi administration are based.

The attack is the latest of a new spasm of violence in Iraq. It demonstrates that the interim government of Iyad Allawi, set up by the US with great fanfare at the end of June, is failing to quell the insurgency or provide security for ordinary people. Further bloody proof of that failure was provided yesterday in the town of Baquba, north of Baghdad, when gunmen strafed a van arrying policemen home from work. Eleven of them and a civilian were killed, the local hospital said.

The two attacks were claimed by the Tawhid and Jihad group of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Islamic militant. A statement on an Islamic web site said: "A lion from the Brigades of Those Seeking Martyrdom succeeded in attacking the centre of volunteers for the renegade police apparatus."

Many victims of the Haifa Street attack would not accept that they had been injured by a suicide bomber. They blamed the US. "There was an American jet flying around just before the explosion," said Yassin Hamid. His mother, sitting by his hospital bed, added: "They are trying to reduce the number of Iraqis."

Others blamed terrorists for the attack, but accused the government and the US of not providing security. "Bush is a dog," chanted the Haifa Street crowd.

Other victims of the blast simply blamed "terrorists". Omar Mezher Mohammed, who saw three friends killed, said: "The bombers are not true mujahedin."

It is a measure of the level of violence in Baghdad that the car bomb was not the first explosion on Haifa Street yesterday. Taha Salem Shalash, 24, went to the police station at 7.30am looking for a job. "Three mortar bombs landed close by and the police asked us to leave," he said. "They said there would be no interviews." The job-seekers suspected, however, that the police might begin recruiting again and many stayed put. Some 250 men were standing in the street or waiting in cafés when the bomb exploded.

The willingness of young men to wait close to police stations, despite knowing they may be attacked, shows the desperate shortage of jobs in Iraq. At least half the population is unemployed; a quarter live on less than $2 (£1.10) a day.

The rising level of violence in recent days makes it decreasingly likely that elections can be held as planned in January. Large areas of the country are outside government control.

The US has pledged to extend government authority but relies heavily on use of air power, inflicting heavy civilian casualties and creating a backlash of hatred. As a US military spokesman announced on Monday that it had mounted a "precision" raid on Islamic militants in Fallujah, Iraqis were watching television pictures of a Red Crescent ambulance in the city torn apart by a US bomb. It killed the driver, a paramedic and five patients.

Many of the rebel attacks are precisely targeted. Saboteurs also struck at a key junction on an oil pipeline at Baiji, north of Baghdad. The fire melted power cables, setting off a chain reaction that left the whole of Iraq without electricity. The blast came soon after damage from an earlier explosion was repaired.

A WEEK OF CARNAGE

Wednesday 8 September: Aid agencies prepare to withdraw over safety concerns.

Thursday: US air assault on Tal Afar, east of Mosul, kills 57 insurgents, according to US military sources. But provincial health chief says 27 civilians killed and 70 wounded.

Sunday: A day of carnage sees 110 people killed across the country. US helicopters fire rockets on Haifa Street in Baghdad, killing 13 and wounding 61. In the west of the city a police chief is killed by a bomb. Fighting between Iraqi forces and insurgents kills 51 in Tal Afar and 10 in Ramadi.

Monday: US forces launch air strikes on Fallujah, leaving at least 16 dead and 12 wounded. A village 20 miles from Baghdad also comes under fire. Six people are killed.

Tuesday: Massive car bomb on Haifa Street kills 47. Gunmen open fire on police minibus in Baquba, killing 12, while US forces kill 10 Iraqis in Ramadi.


15 September 2004 12:00


©2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
In Retaken Iraqi City, Perils Lurk
Masked Informer Leads U.S. Search For Insurgents

By Steve Fainaru
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 15, 2004; Page A01

TALL AFAR, Iraq, Sept. 14 -- The Iraqi known as "The Source" slipped the borrowed U.S. military fatigues over his clothes in the back of the armored personnel carrier. He donned a black ski mask that covered everything but his eyes.

He stepped out of the back of the vehicle and addressed the interpreter who would in turn address the company commander who would lead the search for terrorists this day.

"The village. He wants you to arrest all the men in the village," the interpreter told Army Capt. Eric Beaty, commander of Company C, 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment.

"They`re all bad?" Beaty asked.

The interpreter consulted The Source. "Yes, all bad," he said.

"Well, what we`ll do is we`ll put you up on the top of the Stryker, and you can tell us where to go left or go right, okay?" Beaty said.

A half-dozen Strykers, 21-ton armored vehicles, then rumbled up the road in search of the shadowy enemy that has made much of Iraq -- including this remote agricultural city near the Syrian border -- a dangerous place for U.S. forces.

The six hours that followed revealed much about the challenges faced by U.S. soldiers who are trying to find the men who are trying to kill them.

U.S. forces have controlled Tall Afar since Sunday, after battles last week that killed an estimated 104 Iraqis and displaced 50,000 to 100,000 residents. On Tuesday, soldiers reopened the city to those who had fled. They searched for insurgents among all military-age males who entered, and in sweeps like the one recommended by The Source.

The day began about 11 a.m. at Checkpoint 3 along an asphalt road the military refers to as Route Santa Fe.

Beaty positioned The Source in a Stryker at one of the two rear hatches normally used by machine gunners. His torso and hooded face peeked out of the vehicle as he led the U.S. troops to the village of Tolelhar, on the city`s western outskirts.

Seated inside were Pfc. Mario Rutigliano, 19, of Clifton, N.J.; Pfc. Clyde Gean, 23, of Wilmington, N.C.; and Spec. Jared Cate, 20, of Concord, N.H. Along with the rest of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team here, the three have been attacked for months with grenades, roadside bombs, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

One of the insurgents` favorite weapons in Tall Afar are RKG-3 hand grenades. The weapons look like coffee cans on sticks and, when flung by insurgents, float toward the target on tiny parachutes, then explode in midair, sending the force of the blast straight down.

"We need to get some music in here," Rutigliano said as the Stryker rolled toward the village.

"Yeah, we do," Cate agreed.

"You lose your mind if you take this stuff too seriously," Rutigliano said.

Rutigliano said he thought the Stryker Brigade had defeated local insurgents, but he predicted they`d be back. "It doesn`t matter how many we kill, they`ll always keep coming back," he said. "They`ve all got cousins, brothers. They have an endless supply."

The Stryker stopped in a parched field in Tolelhar. The rear ramp dropped and the soldiers bolted from the vehicle into the blinding afternoon, crouching and sweeping their black M-4 assault rifles across the barren landscape.

The men fanned out and headed for buildings on the other side of the field. A half-dozen soldiers punched through the door of a two-room mud house. Nineteen women and children huddled together in the shade of the courtyard while the soldiers searched for weapons.

Two soldiers came to a large cabinet containing scattered clothes, small teacups, a small Winnie the Pooh doll and a large stack of blankets. The men poked their guns into the blankets on the top shelf and they began to fall. The soldiers scoured the jumble, then left.

Outside the house, other soldiers had seven men lined up facing the mud wall surrounding the house. Two of the detainees massaged prayer beads as the soldiers fitted them with plastic flexible handcuffs and blindfolds. Some wore trousers, others white gowns.

"You have the right to remain silent," one soldier told an uncomprehending detainee in English. "Anything you say will result in a punch in the face."

Most of the detainees appeared to be in their twenties or thirties; one appeared to be at least 70. The soldiers photographed the detainees` identification documents and then the detainees` faces. An interpreter, whom the soldiers called "Terp," wrote down the names on the back of a piece of cardboard torn from a pack of mixed fruit. The names were then compared with a "Black List" -- a computer printout of suspected terrorists.

"Bad guys, bad guys," said one soldier, watching the detainees as they were processed.

"Or maybe just some guys without a home," Beaty said.

The detainees, now numbering 10, were marched single file across the field. Soldiers from five other Strykers had rounded up 83 other men. They were seated on baked earth coated with straw, their hands behind their backs.

One man gave his name as Mustafa Abdul Rahman, 55. He said he was from Tall Afar and had left to escape the fighting.

"They said on the loudspeaker for us to leave the city," he said through an interpreter. During the fighting last week, the Tall Afar police chief had asked residents to leave for their safety.

The man sitting next to him said he had also fled the violence. "We escaped because we were scared," he said. "We came here."

As the men sat, some with their heads tipping forward, others looking around, a soldier yelled, "Get The Source."

The Source, still wearing the borrowed uniform and black ski mask, came forward. He was asked to point out the terrorists in the group. He walked down the rows of detainees, putting his hand on the head of one man here, another there. As he did, a soldier would pick up the fingered detainee and separate him from the group.

"All of the village, they are terrorists," The Source told two journalists after he finished.

Asked how he knew, he said: "I have one guy here, and he passed along the information to me."

Asked how he could be sure, he said: "Yes, they are terrorists. They all have the long beard. They had the beard, but some of them they shaved."

The Source declined to give his name. He then asked: "Is the commander going to pay me any money? If you are an informant, they are supposed to give you money."

The detainees whom The Source had patted on the head were loaded into the Strykers, flex-cuffed and blindfolded. By the end of Tuesday, 49 men were in custody, said Army Capt. Nathan Terra. "This was the most we`ve ever had, by far," he said. The detainees were so numerous that the soldiers ran out of flex cuffs and blindfolds.

U.S. military officials said the detainees would be held at a detention center inside Forward Operating Base Sykes, outside Tall Afar. Most would be held no more than 48 hours for interrogation, they said, then released.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
`Job Quality` -- Campaign Myth

By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, September 15, 2004; Page A25

There may be lots of reasons to vote for John Kerry over George Bush, but "job quality" isn`t one of them. Kerry has been telling crowds that the country is "shipping jobs overseas and replacing them with jobs that pay you less than the jobs you have today." Ergo, job quality is going to the dogs. A few weeks ago I wrote that presidents have little power to influence job creation. The trouble for Kerry is that they have even less power to alter job "quality" -- the nature of new jobs, how much they pay and how much security they provide. Presidents can`t do much more than you or I can.

The composition of U.S. jobs (there are more than 131 million) changes slowly. The Bureau of Labor Statistics divides the labor market into 19 major industry groups. From 1992 to 2002, 12 had employment gains. Even so, the overall distribution of jobs shifted only slightly. Large losses hit farmworkers (who went from 2.1 percent of the total to 1.6 percent) and manufacturing workers (from 13.6 percent to 10.6 percent). Big gains occurred among education and health workers (from 9.6 percent to 11.2 percent) and professional and business service workers (from 8.9 percent to 11.1 percent).

The picture is the same if you look at occupations -- from janitors to engineers. The BLS projects the growth of various occupations. (People in similar occupations work in different industries.) Though some of its estimates will prove wrong, the agency predicts few dramatic changes. From 2002 to 2012, the number of construction workers is expected to rise from 5.6 million to 6.5 million, the number of computer programmers and software engineers from 1.2 million to 1.6 million, and the number of purchasing agents from 419,000 to 455,000. Yes, a changing economy demands new skills and creates new types of jobs. In 1870 almost half the workforce was in farming. But job shifts are gradual.

I suspect that, in a narrow sense, Kerry`s claims are half right and half wrong: half wrong because many jobs being lost to other countries are low-skilled and low-paying (that`s why they`re being lost); and half right because new jobs being created in this recovery may pay less than jobs lost -- mostly for domestic reasons -- in the recession and its aftermath. People who lose their jobs often have to take pay cuts to get new work; the latest BLS study finds a typical wage loss of about 7 percent. In a weak labor market, companies can also hire for a little less. Kerry`s charge is plausible, though studies of recent job figures reach differing conclusions. But Kerry`s broader message -- the one intended to impress voters -- is wrong.

He implicitly suggests that the U.S. economy under Bush can`t create high-paying (aka "good``) jobs. We heard a similar refrain in the 1980s when the United States was supposedly becoming "a nation of hamburger flippers." The story was wrong then, too.

Whatever`s happening to wages mostly reflects the temporary effects of the business cycle. The false story survives because it embodies a popular myth: Manufacturing jobs -- which have declined -- are high-paying, and "service" jobs -- which are increasing -- are not. In truth, average hourly earnings for non-supervisory workers in both sectors are roughly similar. In 2003 they were $15.74 for manufacturing and $14.96 for services. Some manufacturing industries are well paid (chemical workers: $18.52 an hour in 2003) and some aren`t (apparel workers: $9.56). Some service industries are well paid (financial services: $17.13) and some aren`t (retailing: $11.90).

Service jobs now account for more than four-fifths of the total. If all were bad, we`d be a Third World nation. Even if all were bad, a president couldn`t make much of a difference. A society`s jobs reflect prevailing technologies, consumer tastes, population patterns, workers` skills and government policies. A president controls none of these. Even his influence over government policies is limited, and the effects of government policies are themselves limited.

What can government do? Suppose it turned rabidly protectionist; that would mainly aid manufacturing, involving about 11 percent of all jobs -- and all consumers would pay higher prices. Suppose government raised the minimum wage; well, that might help some low-paid workers -- but others might be priced out of a job.

Suppose government required that companies provide more health insurance for workers; well, most of the extra costs would come out of wages. Suppose that government magically improved the quality of schools; well, that might qualify more workers for higher-skilled and better-paid jobs -- in about 10 or 15 years.

It`s easy to make speeches about jobs; but it`s not easy to affect jobs. John Kerry and George Bush have genuine differences over taxes, health care, energy policy and judicial appointments. There are legitimate questions about their foreign policies, leadership styles and characters. Voters should decide based on real issues, not rhetorical flourishes.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Die letzten Entwicklungen bei Bushs Dienst bei der National Guard.
Der Inhalt der Memos ist richtig, es ist nur die Frage, ob die Schreiben selbst echt sind.


Ex-Guard Typist Recalls Memos Criticizing Bush
But the commander`s secretary says she thinks the ones that surfaced last week are fakes.
By James Rainey
Times Staff Writer

September 15, 2004

George W. Bush`s commanding officer in the Texas Air National Guard wrote memos more than 30 years ago objecting to efforts to gloss over the young lieutenant`s shortcomings and failure to take a flight physical, the officer`s former secretary said Tuesday night.

But Marian Carr Knox of Houston said she thought four memos unveiled by CBS News last week were forgeries — not copies of the ones she typed at the time.

Knox, 86, worked for 23 years at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston and served as a typist for Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, then Bush`s squadron commander, and several other officers.

In a brief interview Tuesday, she confirmed that Killian had concerns about Bush`s failure to take his physical examination in 1972, which prevented him from flying, and about efforts by higher-ups to protect the future president from the fallout.

Knox told several newspapers that Killian kept the personal files on Bush, and on other topics, in a desk drawer as a way of "covering his back" in anticipation of later questions about his actions. She retired in 1979, before Killian`s death, and said she did not know what became of the files.

Knox said that the four memos first shown last week on CBS News did not look authentic. After speaking briefly to The Times, Knox said she was tired of talking about the subject and turned the phone over to her son, Patrick M. Carr.

Carr said he had heard his mother describe for other reporters how some of the terminology in the memos, including the use of "billets" and a reference to the "administrative officer" were not in common usage in the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, for which she worked. She said those terms sounded more like the ones used by the Army National Guard, her son said.

The four memos in question, revealed by CBS Sept. 8, purportedly were written by Killian between May 1972 and August 1973, during a time when Bush was absent from his regular Guard duty. The network called the source of the documents "unimpeachable," but declined to say who it was.

The first memo ordered Bush to take a physical in order to maintain his flying status. The next discussed how he could "get out of coming to drill" so he could go to Alabama to work on a political campaign. The third and fourth memos, respectively, said Bush had been "suspended from flight status" and that Killian was resisting pressure from a former Guard officer to "sugar-coat" Bush`s yearly evaluation.

Killian died in 1984, and his views of Bush have been hotly debated by those around him, with Knox joining another former Guard officer who said objections to Bush`s service sounded like those the squadron commander would have made.

Killian`s son and widow, however, have said adamantly that they do not believe he kept such "personal" records on Bush or other employees and that the officer held his young pilot in high esteem.

Gary D. Killian, 51, of Houston said that Knox was a "dear old lady" but that she was not in the best position to know or recall his father`s feelings of 30 years ago.

"I had more time to talk to my father and know what he thought about those things than Ms. Carr, bless her heart," Killian said Tuesday.

"First of all, she was the secretary not just to my dad but to many officers, and her primary job was to do typing for the group commander," Killian said.

"All the documents from Bush`s record have been released and these don`t exist. That`s because they never happened."

CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius greeted Knox`s statements with mixed emotions. While suggesting that Knox was wrong about the authenticity of the memos, she was pleased that the one-time secretary corroborated their content.

"While we do not believe that she is a documents expert," CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said of Knox, "it is exceptionally noteworthy that she supports the content of our story.""While we do not believe that she is a documents expert," CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said, "it is exceptionally noteworthy that she supports the content of our story."

White House officials could not be reached for comment, but earlier in the day the Bush administration made its strongest statements yet rebutting the memos. Aides said Bush had recently reviewed the documents and told them that the memos did not reflect the nature of his relationship with Killian.

First Lady Laura Bush had said while campaigning Monday that she felt the documents were fakes.

The debate over the memos has raged for a week in a campaign in which both Bush and Democratic nominee John F. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, have gone to great lengths to bolster their credentials to lead the nation as commander in chief.

Questions about Bush`s service began when his father, George H.W. Bush, ran for president in 1988. Since the younger Bush won the presidency four years ago, his backers have said repeatedly that his honorable discharge is the best evidence that he served admirably. But a six-month gap in his service in 1972 has never been completely explained, and most of the men who served at an Alabama base where Bush was supposed to have reported that year said they did not recall ever seeing him.

The controversy began Sept. 8, when the "CBS Evening News" and the network`s "60 Minutes" magazine aired extensive reports saying Bush was fast-tracked into the Guard over other candidates and then had his path to an honorable discharge cleared, despite the fact that he didn`t fly for his last 18 months in the service.

CBS interviewed former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes, who said that, at the request of a Bush family friend, he had talked the head of the Air National Guard into giving Bush a coveted position, one that would keep him out of combat. Barnes is a Democrat and a top financial contributor to Kerry`s campaign.

To buttress its report, the network displayed four memos it said were written at the time by Bush`s by-the-book unit commander.

A tempest erupted almost immediately over the authenticity of the memos, with some experts saying that the typing and spacing were unlike what would have been produced by typewriters of the era.

Knox based her objections to the memos not on the type but on the content, which she said smacked of the Army, not the Air Force.

Like all aspects of the debate, the views of the principals tend to coincide with their feelings on the election.

Knox identified herself as an opponent of Bush, whom she called unfit for office. Killian`s son, meanwhile, called himself a Republican who would vote for the president as "the best alternative."

Bush on Tuesday addressed a national conference of thousands of retired and active Guard members in Las Vegas, telling them he was proud of his service.

Kerry is to address the same group Thursday but does not plan to speak about Bush`s Guard service, an advisor said.

Instead, the Democrat plans to thanks the Guard members for their "heroic service" and to "hold the president accountable for what he is doing now, not 30 years ago," said Joe Lockhart, a senior advisor to the campaign.

CBS`s next move is also unclear. Even as other reporters lined up for interviews with Knox Tuesday, CBS anchor Dan Rather was calling into the elderly woman`s home.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Tony will seinen alten Freund George loswerden!

Bush`s Buddy Blair Favors Kerry, So the Chatter Goes
Britain`s prime minister has stayed neutral in the U.S. race, but some analysts see a preference.
By John Daniszewski
Times Staff Writer

September 15, 2004

LONDON — At the recent Republican National Convention, First Lady Laura Bush recalled an "intense" meeting at Camp David between her husband and Tony Blair, his British ally in the campaign against Saddam Hussein. At the mention of the prime minister`s name, the delegates applauded.

So it might come as a surprise: Blair would like to see somebody else occupying the White House.

Or at least that`s the buzz in the political talking classes here. For the record, Blair has struck a strictly neutral pose. He easily deflected a reporter`s question about his preference at a news conference last week, saying that the choice of president is for the American people alone.

But in a delicate political minuet, an envoy from Blair`s left-of-center Labor Party had just been in the United States on a semiprivate visit, meeting with Democratic leaders and activists in New York. The message being delivered was that Labor`s traditional friendship with the party was intact and that Blair stood more than ready to cooperate with a Democratic administration should John F. Kerry win the November election.

At the same time, Progress magazine — independent, but considered the favored mouthpiece of Blair`s "modernist" wing of the Labor Party — came out with a lacerating editorial criticizing President Bush`s style and handling of the presidency and concluding that "those who recognize that American leadership is both vital, and a force for good in an uncertain world, will wish John Kerry well on 2 November."

The piece, penned by the magazine`s editor, Robert Philpot, signaled where the Blair camp genuinely stands. It was headlined "The Real Deal."

"I think it is fairly obvious that if Blair were to draw a personal preference, he would want Kerry to win," John Rentoul, chief political commentator for the Independent on Sunday, said in an interview. "However, he is not going to say so."

The advantage to Blair of a Kerry White House is obvious, said one Labor commentator close to Downing Street`s thinking. "We will have an administration in Washington that is far more in touch with the one here in London, and actually could take some of the more difficult decisions," the source said, requesting anonymity because of Blair`s edict to appear neutral.

Support for Bush — or lack of it — among foreign leaders has intermittently emerged in the presidential campaign.

This year, Vice President Dick Cheney chastised Kerry for his reported comment (which later emerged to be a misquotation) that foreign leaders had told him they preferred him for the presidency. A White House spokesman went so far as to challenge Kerry to name names or else admit he had lied.

"American voters are the ones charged with determining the outcome of this election, not unnamed foreign leaders," Cheney mocked Kerry at the time.

Even though Britain is a close U.S. ally, there are indications of great disquiet about Bush`s leadership, and a feeling that he is a political liability.

"Everyone around here is praying that Bush loses — not least because we lose loads of votes every time he opens his mouth about his close friend Tony Blair," said one Labor member of Parliament, who requested anonymity. "And I should say that I supported the military action in Iraq."

Bush`s standing in Britain is low. A recent survey for the Times of London showed Britons polled preferring Kerry to Bush by a 52%-29% margin. The Labor lawmaker said Bush`s widespread unpopularity is "our Achilles` heel" and could hurt Labor in the next general elections.

Another Labor legislator, Clive Soley, disagreed. "I don`t think it makes that much difference either way," he said. "The perverse part is that Bush winning makes people realize that whether or not they like it, people have to adjust to the feelings in the United States, and that would be good for the political classes."

Political journalist Andrew Grice, writing in the Independent, said that some backbenchers in Blair`s party wished the prime minister would go further to help Kerry, perhaps even by asking the Democrat to speak at Labor`s national conference, as President Clinton did in the past.

But according to Grice, Labor`s upper echelon has concluded — especially given Bush`s upturn in U.S. polls and the recent focus on security issues — that most Americans are reluctant to switch presidents. Any overtures to Kerry could risk burdening U.S.-British relations if Bush were reelected.

Still, Labor`s preference for the Democratic Party is unsurprising, given that Labor and the Democrats both tend to the left of the political spectrum and are often in sync on policy. Blair followed Clinton`s example to move his party toward the center in the 1990s, a shift that resulted in victory in 1997 after 18 years of Conservative Party rule. The two leaders were exceptionally close.

When Clinton left office in 2001, Blair — reportedly at Clinton`s advice — shifted his friendship to Bush.

Kerry need not worry about the Bush-Blair bond, however, Rentoul said. "If John Kerry wins, which he still might do, Tony Blair will be his best buddy too," Rentoul said. "He is pretty flexible in that sense."

Janet Stobart of The Times` London Bureau contributed to this report.





Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
Informed Comment
[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Thoughts on the Middle East, History,and Religion
[/TABLE][Table align=left]

[/TABLE]

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Carbomb Kills 47, Wounds 114 in Karkh

Luke Harding writes for The Guardian in Baghdad that a huge car bomb killed 47 and wounded 114 at the al-Karkh Police station. Targeted were prospective recruits to the police force.

In Baqubah, guerrillas attacked a mini-bus full of police, killing 11 along with a civilian, as they headed home to their base.

US troops fought guerrillas in Ramadi, and the fighting left 8 dead and 18 wounded.

Although the shadowy Monotheism and Holy War (MAHW) organization tried to take credit for the Baghdad bombing, it most likely was committed by Iraqi nationalists. It is not clear whether these post-Baath nationalists are using MAHW as a screen, or whether MAHW is grandstanding and just taking credit, or whether American intelligence organizations are using MAHW as plot device that allows the Bush administration to continue to link Iraq and al-Qaeda. (Actually, anyway, Monotheism and Holy War is a rival to al-Qaeda that refuses to share resources with it, so even if it exists it doesn`t prove an al-Qaeda link to Iraq).

Colin Freeman of the Scotsman offers a clear-eyed assessment of what a farce the "turn-over of sovereignty" has come to be.

posted by Juan @ 9/15/2004 06:19:15 AMhttp://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109…

Ethnic Conflict in Tal Afar?

A correspondent in Europe sent me the following from the Turkish press.


This very abridged story from a Turkish newspaper could be of interest. The Talafar case is VERY serious in fact, Foreign Minister Gül openly is threatening the USA to end cooperation. Guess what the opposition says: They are shocked and criticize the government of Turkey for cooperating with US on Iraq. I know how anti-American the Turks are, the government just has a good position since its backed by all the press including liberals. By the way perhaps you hear other numbers, but the Turkish press reports 60.000 inhabitants out of 450,000 have fled and are in a critical situation.

Gül and Gen Chief of staff are in Lithuania (for different reasons) and evaluate the situation in Telafer from there

The US wanted the Türkmen security forces of Telafer [obviously they are governing themselves] to make searches in some houses. The Türkmen security forces rejected this since they knew the people, who were also Türkmen. Upon US insistance on the operation, the security chief of Telafar stepped back and the US appointed a Kurd, Hurshit Hasso as security chief, who immediatley started the operation using support of Kurdish troops from Zaho and Erbil. These troops participated as Iraqi Security forces. Now much of the civilian population is in the Kamber valley and are afraid that the Kurds will bring their families along, settle for good and thus change the balance for the national census in Iraq, which is to be held on Oct 12.


The author is Fikret BILA, the newspaper Milliyet.


posted by Juan @ 9/15/2004 06:04:48 AM
Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Open Letter to Madonna from Angela Godfrey-Goldstein

I got this by email from The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and thought I would share it here. It might sound frivolous but it is very important.



PO Box 2030
Tels: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Rehov Ben-yehuda 7
[phone]
Website: www.icahd.org

91020 Jerusalem, Israel
[phone]




Jerusalem, September 14, 2004



Madonna – Esther, shalom, salaam, welcome.

On behalf of Israeli Jews, and Palestinian or Israeli Christians and Muslims seriously opposed to your highly controversial visit, we ask you, with compassion, to reconsider the consequences of coming to Israel/Palestine in this context.

This visit takes you to the heart of Occupied Territory in Bethlehem: a closed-off prison, a ghetto, whose civilians now have no work, no freedom, no life. They`ve finished their savings, live now on food handouts from foreign donor agencies. They`ve had their land taken, they have no justice through the courts, this entire city of ordinary folk trying to live a decent life, is imprisoned, while Israel calls the shots.

The International Court of Justice ruled the Wall and settlements illegal. In Bethlehem, the Wall annexes Rachel`s Tomb (a Muslim Mosque, too, with a Muslim cemetery nearby and a Christian site), in yet another Israeli land grab. Where you will be, at Rachel`s Tomb, is Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Wall, the Checkpoint right there, Border Police and army based there keep Palestinians locked in prison. Three million Palestinians are under full closure for the entire month of Jewish High Holidays. All to ensure further settlement development. At all times, they can`t get out. They`ll even have to pray at Rachel`s Tomb checkpoint, instead of their own Jerusalem holy site, Al Aqsa Mosque, at Ramadan next month, like last year.

In the last four years, we`ve killed five times more of their children, three times more of their civilians, than the Palestinians have killed Israeli kids or civilians. We`ve taken their homes, land and villages, dignity, work. Bethlehem is a ghetto, with no work, and look – you a tourist – are you going to the Christian sites in the centre of Bethlehem?

All this is about apartheid, separation, and yet more abuse of power, causing the terror / resistance. The whole area`s been turned into a fortress, not a holy site, from which Israeli forces shot and killed unarmed Palestinian kids at the beginning of the Intifada. Does warlike aggression speak of spirituality? Rachel`s Tomb is descending into the darkness of rip-off, very far from LIGHT.

Next to Rachel`s Tomb is Ayda Refugee Camp – whose 5,000 hostages have been stuck there for years, forbidden to return to their homes in Israel. What about all the refugees rotting in camps in Lebanon and Syria, who pray to return home?

As a world figure, an international leader, a Christian and follower of Kabbalah, we ask you to do a reality check. Are you being used to legitimise the Occupation of Palestine? Are you being exploited, without your full awareness? Has your wish to bring peace been co-opted by other forces?

Madonna. Esther. We pray you`ll find the strength to set the example artists in the past have set. A spiritual role. One remembers apartheid South Africa, civil rights. Mahatma Gandhi`s grandson was here last month, on such a mission.

It would be good if you speak up. To take up the cause of the dispossessed. To be a voice for the mute, the dumb, the hopeless weak. The underdog.

By saying no. No to apartheid. No to colonial landaholic land-grabs, that hide behind a "spiritual" pose. And lose all humanity, and stir up war, in doing so. Say no. Say no. Say no. Say no. Say no. One little word. The liberating: No.


In peace. (I hope we may meet to talk…)

Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, Advocacy Officer,

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions

posted by Juan @9/14/2004 04:03:56 PM

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Wednesday, September 15, 2004
War News for September 15, 2004

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

Bring ‘em on: Two Iraqis killed, ten wounded by car bomb at Iraqi Army checkpoint near Suwayrah.

Bring ‘em on: Three beheaded bodies found near Baghdad.

Bring ‘em on: Ten Iraqis killed in fighting with US Marines near Ramadi.

WIA this week. “More than 200 U.S. service members were wounded in Iraq in the past week, the Pentagon said yesterday, and the total since the invasion was launched in March 2003 is 7,245. Of the 219 wounded in the past week, 81 service members were returned to duty; the 138 others were not.

Journalists are terrorists. “US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says journalists have received tip-offs from terrorists of impending attacks in Iraq, singling out Al-Jazeera television as ‘Johnny-on-the-spot a little too often for my taste.’ Rumsfeld gave no specifics or evidence to back up the accusation, which he made during a talk to troops at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, home of the army`s 101st Airborne Division.” Is there any wonder that American troops shoot journalists when the Secretary of Defense makes an inflammatory and unsubstantiated statement like this to US combat troops? The entire US press corps should tear Rummy a new asshole for this outrageous accusation.

More US officers sound off. “Lt. Gen. James Conway, the outgoing commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit, told the Washington Post he resisted called for revenge after four American security workers were killed and mutilated in Fallujah March 31. Instead, civilian authorities, Coalition Provisional Chief Paul Bremer and the White House, decided to send the Marines in to capture or kill the perpetrators….More telling is the fact that senior commanders universally said in interviews -- all of them on condition of anonymity -- if they were making the decision, they would not have gone into Fallujah at that time under those conditions. It is a basic U.S. military tenet to choose the time and place of a battle. The streets of Fallujah may be an unavoidable and tricky battlefield, but the immediate aftermath of the March 31 killings was not the time to fight, they said. First, that robbed them of the element of surprise. It was well known -- because it was announced from press podiums in Baghdad -- that U.S. forces were going in to find the perpetrators and bring Fallujah under control. Second, it "taught" the insurgents that their provocative acts could draw the United States into an urban battle when they wanted it, rather than the other way around. Third, finding the individuals whose faces were on the videotape of the contractor killings is in essence a police job. Fallujah being the tribal city that it was, it would be easy under peaceful conditions to have local police find the identities of the killers and arrest them. Hunting down a handful of men and boys is not the best use of U.S. military capabilities.” You can be sure that the reasons not to assault Fallujah in April and cited in this article are the same reasons these anonymous “senior commanders” gave Bremer, Rumsfeld and Bush before they made the decision to attack. Instead, the White House saw domestic political advantage in pressing an attack so they ignored the professional military advice. When the casualty count began to affect Bush’s poll ratings, the White House ordered an end to the assault, again contrary to military advice. As I said in my September 13th Rant of the Day, these officers are clearly angry about these decisions, and by giving anonymous interviews to journalists – something senior officers rarely do – they are trying to communicate their anger to the American public.

A story you won’t see in the US media:

“TONY JONES: And the ABC`s foreign affairs editor Peter Cave joins us now from Baghdad. Peter, we`ll come to the still unresolved question of whether there are or are not any Australian hostages in a moment, but first, we`ve just seen some extraordinary pictures, another of bloodiest days since the war, is there a sense there that the security situation is simply deteriorating?

”PETER CAVE: It certainly is. We`re seeing kidnappings in the centre of Baghdad that we haven`t seen the like of before. 30 armed men coming in and pulling those two Italian women and a couple of Iraqis out of their house. We`ve had a over the weekend on Sunday, we had five car bombs in and around Baghdad, 13 or 14 rockets and mortars rained down on the green zone and one of them landed at a building behind me here as a matter of fact. Today we`ve had that huge car bomb that you saw. There was another one outside the planning ministry. It didn`t achieve its aim. Only the driver of that car was killed. And just in the last little while there`s been another attack in central Baghdad, a roadside bomb which struck a column of three four-wheel drive vehicles, completely destroying one of them. The other two managed to escape. Not sure at this stage how many people died there. So certainly the temperature is hotting up.”



Lieutenant AWOL goes begging to the UN for help. “The United States and Iraq on Tuesday both pressed wary nations to contribute more to stabilising Iraq and helping the country get past the latest surge of deadly attacks by insurgents. Just hours after more Iraq violence killed at least 73 people, the two allies told the UN Security Council that the international community was vital in helping the country prepare for its first post-Saddam Hussein elections.”

Commentary

Editorial: “At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the War on Terror is a joke. It never really added up. The Americans should have known better. They won the War of Independence by refusing to take on huge standing armies. They preferred to fight the British on their own ground and on terms of their own choosing. They should know that it’s silly to chase terrorists with large standing armies. Terrorists don’t obligingly line up in formation to fight conventional armies. They hide among civilians and they target civilians as well as soldiers. When innocent people are killed by US army or Iraqi police retaliation, the terrorists gain recruits.”

Analysis: “To make matters worse, the United States is trying to impose a quick solution by force in time for its own November presidential elections in which the issue of Iraq looms large, Neep said. ‘The entire notion that we can really influence what happens in Iraq in a timetable dictated by the American presidential election in November is simply absurd. One of the reasons why things have been going wrong is that the Americans have been trying to impose a timetable which doesn`t bear any relevance to what`s happening on the ground in Iraq,’ he said.”

Casualty Reports

Local story: Two Oregon Guardsmen killed in Iraq.

Local story: Kentucky soldier killed in Iraq.

Local story: Utah Marine dies in Iraq.

Local story: Virginia soldier killed in Iraq.


86-43-04. Pass it on.



# posted by yankeedoodle : 3:33 AM
Comment (1) | Trackback (0)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Love Masochism? Vote BushCo!
Could four more brutal years of the Dubya nightmare actually be good for America?
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, September 15, 2004

I have a good friend who believes, gloomily, bitterly, resignedly, that not only are we in for four more years of painful and cheerless BushCo-branded tyranny and misprision and aww-shucks dumb-guy shtick, but also that we are actually at the beginning of a long, brutal, fear-based Republican juggernaut that will last a good 16 more years, at least.

Because this is how long it will take for the current horrific conservative cycle to play itself out, and this would resemble a more typical and historically proven 20-year pendulum swing, in this case one toward neoconservative right-wing hate and homophobia and warmongering that will careen us toward heretofore unprecedented extremes of sadness and isolationism and far too many overweight white people with guns.

But here`s the catch. Here`s the argument: This dark era, this wicked 20-year dystopia America could now be facing, it might be a very good and necessary thing indeed.

Not, as you might dream, because four more years of BushCo and a dozen more of sneering Republican domination means there will likely be good times ahead. Not because we will enjoy an unprecedented era of peace and stability and generosity and environmental sustenance, humanitarian progress and U.N. cooperation and fiscal responsibility and a generally relaxed and open-minded attitude toward religion and multiculturalism and sex. I mean, don`t be ridiculous. Besides, the Clinton era already happened.

But, rather, it will be necessary because the moral and spiritual and physical hemispheres of our existence will quickly become so dire and toxic and the nation`s socioeconomic situation will become so extreme and desperate that maybe, just maybe, we will finally learn something.

This is the argument. It is bitter and defeatist and, maybe, if you let your inner devil`s advocate speak, a little bit true.

Look at it this way: If Kerry wins now, the nation won`t have suffered enough, won`t have traveled far enough down the road of right-wing egotism and misogyny and homophobia and religious self-righteousness and deficit mauling and sanctimonious ideology and mangled grammar to really learn anything indelible, nothing that will affect a permanent sea change in our worldview, and we will just continue to limp along, never really healing and never really refocusing our intention and never fully understanding the depths of our dark side.

And, furthermore, if Kerry wins, history might not be as fully and inevitably antagonistic toward BushCo as his short, dreadful despotism deserves. Our national memory is frightfully short. Everyone will think, oh well, it`s all over now and the damage has been done and it wasn`t all that bad, really, was it?

I mean (they will say), sure Bush is widely regarded as the most politically inept and ethically dangerous and environmentally hostile president in American history, and sure women`s rights were hammered and civil rights were shriveled and every single major ally we have in the world now either disrespects us or mistrusts us or openly abhors us like an Olsen twin shuns direct sunlight.

And sure Dubya`s sanctimonious and violent warmongering actions in the Middle East have done far, far more to inflame anti-U.S. hatred and have amplified the threat of terrorism against us a thousandfold, but hey, the Texas schlub only lasted four years and now we can move on, right?

Wrong. Call it the fatalist maxim: The only way the national soul can really change is through serious crisis, through near-death apocalypse, through things getting so dire and tormented and swollen that something finally has to give, the psycho-spiritual levee at last has to break. And it won`t be the slightest bit pretty. But it will be mandatory. And in the long (long, long) run, ultimately healthy. Sort of like finally purging a massive cancerous lump from your colon. Only not as much fun.

History and the culture, it would seem, bear this view out: We don`t shun pollutive monster SUVs until gas prices hit five bucks a gallon. We don`t quit smoking until we have a lung removed after coughing up enough blood and phlegm to gag a horse. We don`t take care of our bodies until after that second heart attack and we don`t ease up on the toxic garbage foods until we get so fat they have to haul us to the lipo appointment with a forklift.

We don`t lift a finger to protect the environment until the hurricanes slam down and the heat waves crack the streets and vaporize your precious swimming pool and ruin the ski resorts. And even then we just sort of shrug and move somewhere else.

We ignore the Social Security nightmare until 70 million boomers retire and the infrastructure collapses. We don`t touch the truly dire water-supply issue until the reservoirs dry up and the pipelines crack and Earth recoils. We glut on the planet`s natural resources until the land is choked and billions go hungry and even then we seem to think, well, why the hell don`t they get themselves a nice Costco?

We are, ultimately, a species of stasis and lethargy. We are rarely sympathetically proactive, always violently reactive -- and only when the threat is immediate and overwhelming. We have a fetish for shortsightedness and instant gratification and damn the costs and the impending toll on our stunned mal-educated children. We move, in short, only when we have to.

So then. Maybe it has to happen. Maybe we need four more years of BushCo (though not, let us pray, 16 years of toxic Republicanism) just to see how bad it can get, to snap us out of this fearful lethargy, this ignorant numbness, this weird and tragic belief that it is only through sheer faux-macho posturing and pre-emptive bombings and through decimating foreign relationships and igniting holy wars and trying to prove that our angry acidic well-armed God is better than their angry acidic well-armed God, that we are actually safe and healthy and spiritually attuned.

If the past four years are any indication, four more years of BushCo would be just unimaginably dreadful for America, for the health of the planet, for human rights, for the poor and for women and minorities and gays and non-Christian religions. After all, no one could have predicted, four years ago, just how much damage this boot-lickin` puppet president could have wrought on the culture in such a short time. He seemed so harmless and bumbling and lost -- at first.

But, then again, no one anticipated that he would be handed the golden political grenade that was 9/11, and no one could have imagined the he and his snarling administration would so shamelessly, so heartlessly leverage our most horrific national tragedy for such brutal and oily gain, using it not only as a fear tactic and a justification for multiple wars and as a vicious excuse to quell dissenting voices, but also as an actual political slogan, a veritable trademarked brand for the Republican Party. BushCo `04: Vote for Us, or Die.

By the way, there is another option. The path of direness and cataclysm is certainly available and will almost definitely eventually result in significant change born of pain and war and dread.

But know this, too: The mystics and psychics and the energy workers, the healers and the deep astrologers and the ancient shamanistic texts, all tend to agree that a major shift is already under way on this planet, a massive spiritual/energetic transformation slowly sweeping all of humanity, right now and throughout the coming decade, affecting everyone and everything, ready or not, bringing the world`s issues and conflicts and spiritual questions to a critical head.

Here`s the bottom line: It is our choice. It is up to us whether this astounding and deeply profound change will be, as my friend`s opinion suggests, bloody and violent and full of disease and death and flagrant corporate-sponsored abuse of the planet, or whether it will be, instead, full of light and generosity and awareness and a deep, abiding respect for those who share this pale blue dot with us. Both avenues, after all, will cure the cancer. The question then becomes, Do you want it sliced out with a hatchet, or with a feather?

One look at the cruel and arrogant BushCo agenda, and the answer seems evident: We are already making our choice.
# Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.
# Mark`s column archives are here

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. Subscribe to this column at sfgate.com/newsletters.


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/200…

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[EcCo65HH]

[Deep Thought]

@ Joerver

Mal wieder DANKE für den Thread!

Hier mal was Deutschesprachiges:

"Man krümmt sich, so falsch klingt er"
John Kerry und das amerikanische Vietnam-Trauma: Ein Gespräch mit Tony Judt

DIE WELT: John Kerry versucht mit seinem dekorierten Dienst in Vietnam gegen den "Kriegspräsidenten" Bush zu punkten. Mit wechselhaftem Erfolg. Ist Vietnam reif zur Historisierung?


Tony Judt: Man muss sich erinnern, dass Bush am 10. September 2001 ein Präsident ohne Zukunft war. Die Anschläge erst gaben ihm die Raison d`etre, und Krieg wurde das zentrale Thema für seinen Wahlkampf. Die Demokraten, die seit McGovern 1972 an dem Image leiden, in Krisenzeiten zu weich zu sein, mussten darauf reagieren. John Kerry schien ein wunderbarer Herausforderer zu sein. Denn anders als fast jedes Mitglied der Bush-Regierung hatte er mit Auszeichnung gedient. Aber das hatte natürlich seinen Preis. Kerrys Glaubwürdigkeit ist eng verknüpft mit dem einen Krieg, an den sich die Amerikaner mit Unbehagen erinnern. Noch komplizierter wurde die Sache durch sein prominentes Engagement gegen den Krieg nach seiner Rückkehr. Natürlich glaubten die Demokraten, ebendies sei fabelhaft: Hier haben wir einen Mann, der Bush, Cheney und Wolfowitz an Machismo übertreffen kann. Zugleich kann er die Parteilinke beruhigen, weil er ein Kriegsgegner wurde.


DIE WELT: Was ging schief?


Judt: Im Jahr 1973 mag eine Mehrheit der Amerikaner gegen den Krieg gewesen sein. Aber sich mit einem Mann zu identifizieren, der seinen Kameraden damals Kriegsverbrechen vorwarf , heute, zu einer Zeit, da US-Soldaten wieder in einem moralisch zwiespältigen Krieg verwickelt sind und Kriegsverbrechen begehen, ist etwas anderes. So wurde Kerry genau das Gegenteil dessen, was sich die Demokraten erhofft hatten: Nämlich eine Art Blitzableiter für all die Konflikte und Widersprüche des Vietnam-Kriegs. Selbst Veteranen, die eine sichere Bank hätten sein müssen, erregen sich über den Kriegsgegner Kerry. Es ist eine solche Ironie. Hier der Super-Macho-Patriotismus, mit dem lauter Männer sich schmücken, die damals alles taten, um ihren Wehrdienst zu vermeiden; und sie machen einen Mann, der glaubwürdig, im Guten wie im Schlechten, amerikanische soldatische Tugenden verkörpert, zum Gegenstand ihres Spotts und ihrer Verachtung.


DIE WELT: Aber Kerry ging auch an die Grenze der Selbstparodie, als er bei seiner Parteitagsrede salutierte und sich "zum Dienst" meldete.


Judt: Ich weiß, und ich kann mir das nicht erklären. Mein guter Freund David Halverstam sagte mir einmal, dass Kerry überhaupt kein Ohr (tin ear) für solche Nuancen hat. Er hat nicht die Instinkte eines Clinton und sogar eines Bush, zu spüren, wenn etwas falsch klingt. Die Demokraten haben sich verkalkuliert. Die Menschen wollen nicht das reale Kriegsheldentum Kerrys, sondern die falsche Lehnstuhlmännlichkeit (fake machismo) von Bush und Cheney. Die Leute fühlen sich unwohl, wenn Kerry ihnen mit seiner Intensität und moralischen Unschuld kommt. Man krümmt sich, so falsch klingt er. Und er merkt es nicht einmal. Warum Bush andererseits mit seinem (ungedienten) Super-Patriotismus


durchkommt, weiß ich auch nicht recht. Warum niemand sagt: "Moment mal, Du hast Dich gedrückt, Ashcroft erwirkte sieben Aufschübe, Cheney fünf: Wie könnt ihr es wagen?" Es scheint, dass Kerry zu wenig Gegenwart und zu viel Vergangenheit vorzuweisen hat.


DIE WELT: Auch weil es der letzte Krieg mit Wehrpflichtigen war? Gibt es da nicht auch ein Schuldgefühl, dass man die Heimkehrer damals übel behandelte und dass Amerika seine Ideale seit 1973 von Berufssoldaten verteidigen lässt?


Judt: Absolut. Es kommt der amerikanischen Variante einer Klassentrennung nahe. Denn, von Männern wie Kerry abgesehen, gingen die Armen und Ungebildeten nach Vietnam. Die Privilegierten, an Vermögen, Beziehungen und Ausbildung, kamen davon. Daran erinnert man sich nicht so gern. Wie überhaupt an einen unfairen, sozusagen unamerikanischen Krieg. Kerry, ein Aristokrat mit sehr ähnlichem Erziehungshintergrund wie Bush, wollte damit punkten zu sagen: "Hey, ich bin einer von denen, die nicht in den Krieg ziehen müssen, und die doch gingen". Aber das genau wollten die Menschen vergessen. Alles, was in Amerika nach Klassen riecht. Selbst die Veteranen verdrängen es. Es gab in der Demokratischen Partei solche, die das Unheil kommen sahen. Aber auch sie glaubten wohl, wenn Kerry nicht den Krieger herauskehrt, werde es nur noch schlimmer. Die Historisierung des Vietnam-Kriegs zeigt sich gerade darin, dass Clinton in Boston sagen konnte: "Seht, ich war einer von denen, die sich drückten", und sprach einfach für die Widersprüche seiner Generation.


DIE WELT: Er ist 58, zwei Jahre jünger als Kerry...


Judt: Kerry wollte seine Erfahrung mit dem Krieg heute verknüpfen. Aber die Amerikaner sprechen über Vietnam fast wie über die Sklaverei: Ein Problem, das wir nicht leugnen, aber hinter uns gelassen haben. Es ist etwas sehr Fernes. Ich kenne das von meinen Studenten. Fern wie der Zweite Weltkrieg. Vietnam war ein Fehler, wie die Sklaverei eben, aber Fehler kommen vor. Und Bush, Cheney und Rumsfeld können sich deshalb auf eine eigentümliche Weise post-Vietnam präsentieren. Eine Vorahnung dieser Paradoxie lieferte Ronald Reagan, der während des Krieges nie eine Uniform trug, außer in den Propagandafilmen. Aber als Präsident 40 Jahre später begannen viele Leute und er selbst zu glauben, dass er die Heldentaten der Soldaten, die er gespielt hatte, im realen Krieg vollbracht hatte. Kerry dagegen ist auf doppelte Weise real: er kämpfte im Krieg und dann kämpfte er gegen ihn. Bush ist doppelt unehrlich: Er kämpfte nicht, aber er war für den Krieg, den andere für ihn kämpften. Aber diese zweifache Negation schadet ihm nicht. Vielleicht weil sich viele Amerikaner genau darin wieder erkennen.


DIE WELT: Haben Sie damals gegen den Vietnam-Krieg demonstriert?


Judt: Natürlich. Ich studierte 1968 in Cambridge und war einer der Organisatoren der großen Demonstration gegen Lyndon Johnson. Keiner von uns war damals je in Amerika gewesen. Also konzentrierte sich unser Protest strikt auf die Regierung und einen schlechten Krieg, der aus schlechten Motiven geführt wurde. Wir Europäer haben keinen Vietnam-Komplex; wir fanden ihn falsch und mussten ihn ja auch nicht als Alliierte mit Amerika führen. Also wirkt auf uns John Kerry plausibel und sehr ehrlich im Umgang mit einem Trauma. Aber für die Amerikaner verkörpert er das Trauma, über das sie nicht nachdenken wollen. Es ist, als kandidiere ein 140 Jahre alter ehemaliger Sklave für das Repräsentantenhaus.


Tony Judt ist Gründer und Direktor des Remarque Institute of European Studies an der New York University. Das Gespräch führte Uwe Schmitt


"Die Welt" , Mi, 15. September 2004

[Joerver]

Texans for Truth offers $50,000 for proof of Bush service
Date: Wednesday, September 15 @ 10:26:32 EDT
Topic: Commander-In-Thief

From CNN

(CNN) -- The founder of the group Texans for Truth said Tuesday that he is offering $50,000 to anyone who can prove President Bush fulfilled his service requirements, including required duties and drills, in the Alabama Air National Guard in 1972.

The group made the announcement as Bush was in Las Vegas, Nevada, to address the National Guard Association`s convention.

"Today would be a fine day for him to finally answer all the questions that have dogged him since he entered public life," the group`s founder, Glenn Smith, said in a statement.

"Bush`s dishonesty about missing from service during Vietnam goes to the heart of his presidency. He was dishonest then just as he is misleading us about why we went to war with Iraq. He dodges responsibility then just as he dodges responsibility for Iraq today."



White House communications director Dan Bartlett has said that the fact Bush received an honorable discharge means he fulfilled his military duties. Bartlett has dismissed questions about Bush`s service as partisan attacks.

Smith said the controversy about whether documents obtained by CBS News -- alleging the future president failed to obey an order to undergo a physical exam and failed to complete his service in the Alabama Air National Guard -- was irrelevant.

"Authentic or not, they don`t really answer the question about where Mr. Bush was when he was supposed to be doing his duty in the National Guard," he said.

On Monday, first lady Laura Bush said that she believed such documents were probably forgeries.

"You know, they probably are altered, and they probably are forgeries, and I think that`s terrible, really," she said in an interview with Radio Iowa.

"That`s actually one of the risks you take when you run for public office or when you`re in the public eye for any reason, and that`s that obviously a lot of things are said about you that aren`t true and that`s the drawback -- that`s the one thing that`s not great about serving in public office."

CBS News has said it stands by its story and will continue to report on it.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Tuesday that the president has seen the documents and "he has no recollection" of any of them.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said the first lady`s comments do not mean the White House has done an investigation into the authenticity of the documents but that news organizations` probes have raised questions about whether the documents are real.

CBS reported that the memos were written in 1972 and 1973 by Col. Jerry Killian, Bush`s squadron commander. Killian died in 1984.

In the memos put forward by CBS News, the author complained he was being pressured to "sugarcoat" the future president`s performance evaluations and that Bush failed to meet performance standards while a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, including getting a required physical exam.

Killian also purportedly wrote that he believed Bush -- at the time the son of a Texas congressman -- was "talking to someone upstairs" to get permission to transfer to the Alabama National Guard to work on a Senate campaign.

But the authenticity of the documents has come under fire in media reports, with some experts insisting they were not written on a typewriter in the 1970s but generated on a computer at a later date.

Forensic document experts who have examined the memos have told CNN that they cannot conclusively determine whether the documents are authentic -- but some features do raise questions about whether the documents were written in the early 1970s.

Killian`s son, Gary, and former wife, Margorie Connell, have said they do not believe he would have written the memos.

The CBS report came days after the Texans for Truth group began airing television ads questioning whether Bush fulfilled his military obligations. Its name is a takeoff on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been airing ads questioning the military record of Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry. That group`s allegations are at odds with the official Navy records and Kerry`s former crew mates.

Reprinted from CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/14/bush.texans/

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Auch noch ein ungelöstes Problem. Heute schreibt der Guardian, dass der Bürgerkrieg im Irak schon längst begonnen hat.

Kurdish exiles pouring back into northern Iraq city they once fled

By Jim Krane, Associated Press, 9/15/2004 13:45

KIRKUK, Iraq (AP) Kurds are on the move again in northern Iraq but this time they`re not fleeing.

As many as 500 Kurds a day streamed into Kirkuk last month in a land rush that took city officials and U.S. troops by surprise. The influx, which has slowed in September, leaves the nascent city government struggling to cope with dozens of refugee camps on once vacant patches of ground.

Migrants like 60-year-old Tarek Salman Dawoud say they are reclaiming the ancestral city they were forced to flee under Saddam Hussein`s campaigns to make Kirkuk an Arab city and control its oil wealth.

``This is our land. We`ve been here for thousands of years,`` Dawoud said, standing with other Kurds who shouted in assent. Just behind them, a sea of dusty canvas tents stretched across a few square miles of a former Iraqi air base.

However, U.S. officials say the surge is timed to establish residency ahead of elections slated for January. A strong showing for Kurdish leaders could shift Kirkuk province which sits atop 6 percent of the world`s known oil reserves into the orbit of the Kurdish autonomous regions to the north.

Arab migrations have shaped this area since oil was discovered here in the 1930s but picked up momentum in the mid-1970s, when Saddam began asserting control over the government. The New York-based Human Rights Watch estimates that 250,000 Kurds, Turkmen and Assyrians were expelled from Kirkuk and other parts of northern Iraq in the 1970s alone.

A 2001 U.N. census in the autonomous Kurdish regions counted more than 800,000 displaced Iraqis.

``Every member of my family was exiled to the north,`` said Dawoud, who was forced to abandon his Kirkuk home to incoming Arabs in 1995 and move his family to a refugee camp in the autonomous zone.

With Saddam and his regime gone, Dawoud and tens of thousands of others are pouring back.

Already, refugees are building homes in the makeshift camps. Across the city, teams of men could be seen digging foundations on identically sized plots marked on the earth in white chalk and laying concrete blocks or mud bricks.

Many camp residents appear to be part-timers, commuting to their plots on weekends to build homes and returning to Sulaimaniyah and Irbil to work during the week, soldiers said.

Officials monitoring the influx estimate some 72,000 refugees, mainly Kurds, have arrived in and around the city in the past 18 months. Smaller numbers of expelled Turkmen and Assyrian Christians have also erected camps in Kirkuk and surrounding villages. Some 50,000 others, mainly Arabs encouraged to migrate here under Saddam, have fled.

About 20,000 Kurds arrived in August alone, encouraged by Kurdish political parties that have given them money or building supplies to help them reclaim their land, said U.S. Army Maj. Mike Davey of the 2nd Brigade of the Hawaii-based 25th Infantry Division, which controls security in Kirkuk.

If they keep coming, this city of 750,000 could have 100,000 new residents before the first elections since Saddam was ousted last year, officials here say.

The Kurds` return is viewed with alarm by those who fear an independent Kurdish state, among them Iraqi Arabs and surrounding countries with Kurdish minorities, especially Turkey, said U.S. Army Col. Lloyd Miles, who commands the Kirkuk-based brigade.

``They don`t want the Kurds to get control of the oil here,`` said Miles. ``Then they will have a source of income for an independent state.``

The migration is putting pressure on Kirkuk`s Arabs, some 200,000 mainly poor Shiite Muslims from southern Iraq, who were themselves pushed here by successive Iraqi governments.

Some Arabs have said they are willing to return south if they are given land and homes. Others, who`ve lived here for a generation, want to stay, Miles said.

Raising the tension, Kurdish politicians in northern Iraq have demanded the departure of all Arabs who came north during the government`s campaign to make Kirkuk an Arab city. In some cases, Kurdish refugee camps sit just across the road from Arab neighborhoods on the city`s south side.

``They want this area back,`` Davey said of the Kurds. ``It`s a very visible presence.``

At the same time, Kirkuk is beset by insurgents, mainly Sunni Muslim Arabs, who are pressing the Shiite settlers to stay in the city and refuse to sell their homes, Miles said.

For now, the migration has been peaceful, with only a few incidents of Kurdish intimidation of Arab residents.

But a major demographic shift in this city`s precarious four-way ethnic balance could trigger long-term instability, said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commands the 1st Infantry Division, which controls the region.

``Kirkuk is the key to avoiding civil war in Iraq,`` said Lt. Col. Jim Stockmoe, the 1st Infantry`s intelligence officer. ``Kirkuk is to Iraq what Kosovo is to the Balkans. That`s why it`s critical to us and it should be to the Iraqi government.``

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Published on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 by The Nation
Why Bush Left Texas
by Russ Baker


Growing evidence suggests that George W. Bush abruptly left his Texas Air National Guard unit in 1972 for substantive reasons pertaining to his inability to continue piloting a fighter jet.

A months-long investigation, which includes examination of hundreds of government-released documents, interviews with former Guard members and officials, military experts and Bush associates, points toward the conclusion that Bush`s personal behavior was causing alarm among his superior officers and would ultimately lead to his fleeing the state to avoid a physical exam he might have had difficulty passing. His failure to complete a physical exam became the official reason for his subsequent suspension from flying status.

This central issue, whether Bush did or did not complete his duty--and if not, why--has in recent days been obscured by a raging sideshow: a debate over the accuracy of documents aired on CBS`s 60 Minutes. Last week CBS News reported on newly unearthed memos purportedly prepared by Bush`s now-deceased commanding officer. In those documents, the officer, Lieut. Col. Jerry Killian, appeared to be establishing for the record events occurring at the time Bush abruptly left his Texas Air National Guard unit in May 1972. Among these: that Bush had failed to meet unspecified Guard standards and refused a direct order to take a physical exam, and that pressure was being applied on Killian and his superiors to whitewash whatever troubling circumstances Bush was in.

Questions have been raised about the authenticity of those memos, but the criticism of them appears at this time speculative and inconclusive, while their substance is consistent with a growing body of documentation and analysis.

If it is demonstrated that profound behavioral problems marred Bush`s wartime performance and even cut short his service, it could seriously challenge Bush`s essential appeal as a military steward and guardian of societal values. It could also explain the incomplete, contradictory and shifting explanations provided by the Bush camp for the President`s striking invisibility from the military during the final two years of his six-year military obligation. And it would explain the savagery and rapidity of the attack on the CBS documents.

In 1972 Bush`s unit activities underwent a change that could point to a degradation of his ability to fly a fighter jet. Last week, in response to a lawsuit, the White House released to the Associated Press Bush`s flight logs, which show that he abruptly shifted his emphasis in February and March 1972 from his assigned F-102A fighter jet to a two-seat T-33 training jet, from which he had graduated several years earlier, and was put back onto a flight simulator. The logs also show that on two occasions he required multiple attempts to land a one-seat fighter and a fighter simulator. This after Bush had already logged more than 200 hours in the one-seat F-102A.

Military experts say that his new, apparently downgraded and accompanied training mode, which included Bush`s sometimes moving into the co-pilot`s seat, can, in theory, be explained a variety of ways. He could, for example, have been training for a new position that might involve carrying student pilots. But the reality is that Bush himself has never mentioned this chapter in his life, nor has he provided a credible explanation. In addition, Bush`s highly detailed Officer Effectiveness Reports make no mention of this rather dramatic change.

A White House spokesman explained to AP that the heavy training in this more elementary capacity came at a time when Bush was trying to generate more hours in anticipation of a six-month leave to work on a political campaign. But, in fact, this scenario is implausible. For one thing, Guard regulations did not permit him to log additional hours in that manner as a substitute for missing six months of duty later on. As significantly, there is no sign that Bush even considered going to work on that campaign until shortly before he departed--nor that campaign officials had any inkling at all that Bush might join them in several months` time.

Bush told his commanding officers that he was going to Alabama for an opportunity with a political campaign. (His Texas Air National Guard supervisors--presumably relying on what Bush told them--would write in a report the following year, "A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama.") But the timing of Bush`s decision to leave and his departure--about the same time that he failed to take a mandatory annual physical exam--indicate that the two may have been related.

Campaign staff members say they knew nothing of Bush`s interest in participating until days before he arrived in Montgomery. Indeed, not one of numerous Bush friends from those days even recalls Bush talking about going to Alabama at any point before he took off.

Bush`s behavior in Alabama suggests that he viewed Alabama not as an important career opportunity but as a kind of necessary evil.

Although his role in the campaign has been represented as substantial (in some newspaper accounts, he has been described as the assistant campaign manager), numerous campaign staffers say Bush`s role was negligible, low level and that he routinely arrived at the campaign offices in the afternoon hours, bragging of drinking feats from the night before.

According to friends of his, he kept his Houston apartment during this period and, based on their recollections, may have been coming back into town repeatedly during the time he was supposedly working full-time on the Alabama campaign. Absences from the campaign have been explained as due to his responsibilities to travel to the further reaches of Alabama, but several staffers told me that organizing those counties was not Bush`s de facto responsibility.

Even more significantly, in a July interview, Linda Allison, the widow of Jimmy Allison, the Alabama campaign manager and a close friend of Bush`s father, revealed to me for the first time that Bush had come to Alabama not because the job had appeal or because his presence was required but because he needed to get out of Texas. "Well, you have to know Georgie," Allison said. "He really was a totally irresponsible person. Big George [George H.W. Bush] called Jimmy, and said, he`s killing us in Houston, take him down there and let him work on that campaign.... The tenor of that was, Georgie is in and out of trouble seven days a week down here, and would you take him up there with you."

Allison said that the younger Bush`s drinking problem was apparent. She also said that her husband, a circumspect man who did not gossip and held his cards closely, indicated to her that some use of drugs was involved. "I had the impression that he knew that Georgie was using pot, certainly, and perhaps cocaine," she said.

Now-prominent, established Texas figures in the military, arts, business and political worlds, some of them Republicans and Bush supporters, talk about Bush`s alleged use of marijuana and cocaine based on what they say they have heard from trusted friends. One middle-aged woman whose general veracity could be confirmed told me that she met Bush in 1968 at Hemisphere 68, a fair in San Antonio, at which he tried to pick her up and offered her a white powder he was inhaling. She was then a teenager; Bush would have just graduated from Yale and have been starting the National Guard then. "He was getting really aggressive with me," she said. "I told him I`d call a policeman, and he laughed, and asked who would believe me." (Although cocaine was not a widespread phenomenon until the 1970s, US authorities were struggling more than a decade earlier to stanch the flow from Latin America; in 1967 border seizures amounted to twenty-six pounds.)

Bush himself has publicly admitted to being somewhat wild in his younger years, without offering any details. He has not explicitly denied charges of drug use; generally he has hedged. He has said that he could have passed the same security screening his father underwent upon his inauguration in 1989, which certifies no illegal drug use during the fifteen preceding years. In other words, George W. Bush seemed to be saying that if he had used drugs, that was before 1974 or during the period in which he left his Guard unit.

The family that rented Bush a house in Montgomery, Alabama, during that period told me that Bush did extensive, inexplicable damage to their property, including smashing a chandelier, and that they unsuccessfully billed him twice for the damage--which amounted to approximately $900, a considerable sum in 1972. Two unconnected close friends and acquaintances of a well-known Montgomery socialite, now deceased, told me that the socialite in question told them that he and Bush had been partying that evening at the Montgomery Country Club, combining drinking with use of illicit drugs, and that Bush, complaining about the brightness, had climbed on a table and smashed the chandelier when the duo stopped at his home briefly so Bush could change clothes before they headed out again.

It is notable that in 1972, the military was in the process of introducing widespread drug testing as part of the annual physical exams that pilots would undergo.

For years, military buffs and retired officers have speculated about the real reasons that Bush left his unit two years before his flying obligation was up. Bush and his staff have muddied the issue by not providing a clear, comprehensive and consistent explanation of his departure from the unit. And, peculiarly, the President has not made himself available to describe in detail what did take place at that time. Instead, the White House has adopted a policy of offering obscure explanations by officials who clearly do not know the specifics of what went on, and the periodic release of large numbers of confusing or inconclusive documents--particularly at the start of weekends and holiday periods, when attention is elsewhere.

In addition, the Bush camp has offered over the past few years a shifting panoply of explanations that subsequently failed to pass muster. One was that Bush had stopped flying his F-102A jet because it was being phased out (the plane continued to be used for at least another year). Another explanation was that he failed to take his physical exam in 1972 because his family doctor was unavailable. (Guard regulations require that physicals be conducted by doctors on the base, and would have been easily arranged either on a base in Texas or, after he left the state, in Alabama.)

One of the difficulties in getting to the truth about what really took place during this period is the frequently expressed fear of retribution from the Bush organization. Many sources refuse to speak on the record, or even to have their knowledge communicated publicly in any way. One source who did publicly evince doubts about Bush`s activities in 1972 was Dean Roome, who flew formations often with Bush and was his roommate for a time. "You wonder if you know who George Bush is," Roome told USA Today in a little-appreciated interview back in 2002. "I think he digressed after awhile," he said. "In the first half, he was gung-ho. Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life." Yet in subsequent years, Roome has revised his comments to a firm insistence that nothing out of the ordinary took place at that time, and after one interview he e-mailed me material raising questions about John Kerry`s military career. Roome, who operates a curio shop in a Texas hamlet, told me that Bush aides, including communications adviser Karen Hughes, and even the President himself stay in touch with him.

Several Bush associates from that period say that the Bush camp has argued strenuously about the importance of sources backing the President up on his military service, citing patriotism, personal loyalty and even the claim that he lacks friends in Washington and must count on those from early in his life.

In 1971 Bush took his annual physical exam in May. It`s reasonable to conclude that he would also take his 1972 physical in the same month. Yet according to official Guard documents, Bush "cleared the base" on May 15 without doing so. Fellow Guard members uniformly agree that Bush should and could have easily taken the exam with unit doctors at Ellington Air Force Base before leaving town. (It is interesting to note that if the Killian memos released by CBS do hold up, one of them, dated May 4, 1972, orders Bush to report for his physical by May 14--one day before he took off.)

Bush has indicated that he departed from Ellington Air Force Base and his Guard unit because he had been offered an important employment opportunity with a political campaign in Alabama. The overwhelming evidence suggests, however, that the Alabama campaign was a convenient excuse for Bush to rapidly exit stage left from a Guard unit that found him and his behavior a growing problem. If that`s not the case, now would be an excellent time for a President famed for his superlative memory to sit down and explain what really happened in that period.

Russ Baker, a longtime Nation contributor, may be contacted at [e-mail].

Copyright © 2004 The Nation

[Joerver]

[url]http://whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/images/oil-schmoil.jpg zum Vergrößern anklicken

[/url]

[Joerver]

Published on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 by the Miami Herald
Restore America`s Ability to Discuss Ideas
by Robert Steinback


For at least the last two years, I`ve been a man obsessed.

I intrude on the conversations of strangers to debate my concerns and criticisms of the U.S. involvement in Iraq specifically and the Bush administration generally. I argue loudly with people on my television and radio, though of course they can`t hear me. I struggle to write columns that don`t include the words Bush, Iraq or terrorism. (My editors are nodding as they read this.)

What`s motivating me? Everyone I meet seems to have a theory -- but I don`t believe any of them.

The most curious motivation ascribed to me is ``hatred.`` I am accused of believing as I do because I hate President Bush, Republicans, conservatives, Christians or perhaps even America itself. This allegation always puzzles me -- I don`t even hate anyone I know personally. Why would I hate people I haven`t even met? And the claim that I hate America is beyond silly. I should hate the country whose core principles overcame innate human cruelty, enabling my forebears to climb from slavery to prosperity? Nonsense.

I`ve deduced that what people really mean when they accuse me of hatred is, ``If you loved America, you wouldn`t dare criticize what it does.`` But can`t criticism sometimes be an expression of love?

Another accusation is that I take my political stances because -- because -- I`m a Democrat and/or a liberal. When considering an issue, I allegedly ask myself, ``What`s the Democratic and/or liberal position?`` and then mindlessly adopt it.

This is a clever gambit, as I am indeed a Democrat, and since January 2001 for sure, a comfortably self-described liberal. But my political orientation doesn`t define my stance on issues. I don`t need anyone to tell me what to believe; I`m quite capable of determining my own beliefs.

My easy counterpoint: If it were true that partisanship defined my positions on issues, my alarm at talk of war in Iraq should have been soothed by the many Senate Democrats who blindly voted to give Bush the authority to go to war in October 2002. In fact, my outrage was greatly intensified when the ostensible opposition party couldn`t find the backbone to rise in opposition. So much for partisan boosterism.

I`ve also heard the claim that I`m lying to advance the liberal media`s insidious agenda and thus my career. Aside from the utter idiocy of trying to advance a journalism career by choosing to lie -- Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass might testify to the folly in this -- if advancement were my aim, I`ve surely picked the wrong track. A conservative black commentator can go far these days, if on novelty value alone (I`d have been a regular on Fox News by now), while black middle-to-left commentators are a dime a dozen.

There are other accusations -- I`m enthralled by Bill Clinton, I`m a socialist, I`m parroting talking points from the Democratic National Committee -- you get the idea. They`re all designed for one purpose: to head off a debate on issues.

So what does motivate me? I`m only doing what I`ve always done: following my intellectual passion. I review the evidence, both hard and circumstantial, apply the logic that seems most persuasive to me, and refract it all through the prism of my principles. These have combined to create in me a belief that America, under this administration, is headed down an ill-advised, regressive path.

But I recognize this is only my opinion. I expect some people to agree and others not to. I would never just assume I`m right; my obligation is to present my argument anew in each conversation, in each column -- that`s why I love, and live for, debate.

What I can`t grasp is why so few people who contest my opinions can accept them as genuine. With breathtaking, but fairly predictable speed, the ``debate`` turns into an analysis of my motivations for taking the positions I do. It no longer is about what I am saying, but why I am saying it.

I`m sure it goes both ways; there must be issue-focused conservatives tired of accusations they are motivated by racism, greed, fascism or that old standby, hatred. I just don`t seem to run into many. Perhaps we are mutually endangered species.

Our society is becoming increasingly unwilling to -- and sadly, incapable of -- debating ideas. Some might attribute this to the current presidential manure-slinging campaign, but I rather suspect this campaign is a reflection of us. This is more likely a trend than an anomaly.

Ours is a demand-and-supply world: We get what we ask for. We`re sold whatever we`re willing to buy. We receive only what we demand.

Copyright 1996-2004 Knight Ridder.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Published on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Old Dog, Same Tricks? The CIA Then and Now
by Mark Engler and Jeremy Varon


Fifty years ago, in June 1954, the Central Intelligence Agency committed one of the cardinal sins of US foreign policy. That month, the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, was deposed in a coup planned and coordinated by CIA operatives. Arbenz, a moderate, had proposed that uncultivated plots held by large landholders like the United Fruit Company (now Chiquita) be distributed among poor farmers. Documents declassified in 1997 show that in response to this proposed reform the CIA, acting with the approval of President Eisenhower, led a propaganda campaign against Arbenz, sowed disloyalty in the Guatemalan military, and armed a rebel insurgency.

For Guatemala, the coup would end a democratic "decade of spring," inaugurate 40 years of despotism and civil war, and pave the way for a genocidal assault on the country`s indigenous Mayan populations in the1980s. It would have lasting consequences for the United States as well. Although the CIA was only 6 years old, the coup in Guatemala, coming on the heels of the agency`s successful installation of the Shah in Iran in 1953, established a pattern of US support for anti-democratic governments during the Cold War. Not only did this support lead to countless violations of human rights, it also bred anti-Americanism and produced, in cases, disastrous long-term consequences for US policy-what the intelligence community calls "blowback." For decades, such misdeeds drew condemnation from human rights and solidarity activists, some of whom argued that the CIA should be abolished altogether.

The fiftieth anniversary of the coup provides an important opportunity both to look back at the CIA`s record and to ask, in a world of new and very real dangers, if anything has changed in the agency`s behavior. Revelations about the CIA role both in the recent prisoner abuse scandal and in approving the case for war in Iraq raise important questions about the agency`s activity in the post-9/11 era. In the wake of Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet`s recent resignation and the release of the 9/11 Commission report, a new round of discussions about possible reforms of the agency has commenced, making ever more urgent a consideration of what it would take to truly change US intelligence operations for the better.

Cheering US Spies

Several developments regarding the CIA in the past two years have tempted us to applaud the agency. The CIA-famously called a "rogue elephant" by congressional investigators in the 1970s-has often seemed conspicuously absent from the gallery of roguish operatives responsible for the reckless "war on terror" and the deepening catastrophe in Iraq. Indeed, as the Bush administration`s case about Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction has unraveled, many progressives-ourselves included-have found themselves acting as unexpected champions of American spies.

We cheered the mid-level intelligence officers who spoke out against the faulty and misrepresented information that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq, much of which came out of special offices in the Department of Defense. We denounced the criminal outing of CIA-officer Valerie Plame by two "senior administration officials," a cold act of political revenge for her husband`s criticism of the President`s lies and a stern message to other dissenters. ("Naming names" can severely cripple Agency functions. CIA dissident Philip Agee, doing just that in the early 1970s, forced the entire reorganization of Latin American operations.) And we reacted with appreciative surprise when the CIA`s Richard Kay, in an admirable fit of candor, told Congress that the hunt for WMD was fruitless. (Who among reasoned skeptics-given the CIA`s history of forging documents and planting weapons-hadn`t feared that the US would fabricate the existence of banned weapons in Iraq?) Finally, even leftists might wish that the CIA was better at its tasks, including covert operations, when wondering if a successful, clandestine "hit" on Osama Bin Laden wouldn`t have spared the sorrows of 9/11 and have been ultimately preferable to the troublesome US invasion of Afghanistan.

Based on our reaction to the Plame outing alone, concerned friends and political opponents have been asking, "Since when have you been such big fans of the CIA?" It is a good question. However, qualified support for select agency staff and the recognition of post-9/11 dangers should not obscure other, damning ways in which old patterns of CIA behavior remain unbroken.

Mission Creep

It is important, before filling in the bigger picture with regard to Iraq, to clarify the distinction between proper and improper use of US intelligence agencies. The CIA was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. Its original charge was to gather and analyze information about America`s foreign enemies and thus enable the president, the Pentagon, and Congress to respond to existing and potential threats. Among its founding premises is that it is advantageous for elected officials-whatever their party or ideology-to make decisions based on solid facts and informed speculations rather than on misconceptions or recklessly false alarms. To this extent, information gathering is theoretically an apolitical endeavor. It is why intelligence agencies are staffed with career civil servants, not rotating appointees loyal to a particular administration.

It is naïve, however, to think that real-world intelligence has worked this way. Virtually since its inception, the CIA strayed beyond its mandate and began to clandestinely manipulate the domestic politics of foreign countries. The earliest such operations were to ensure the electoral defeat of communists in France and Italy in 1948. Decades of far dirtier political work followed. The CIA overthrew democratically elected leaders not just in Guatemala, but in the Congo (1960), Chile (1973), and elsewhere. It launched protracted and bloody counter-insurgency operations in places like Vietnam and El Salvador. And, in pursuit of short-term goals, it made monsters over which it ultimately lost control, such as the Muhajadeen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, which included the likes of Osama bin Laden. In each case, the agency acted with little public awareness or congressional oversight.

Inappropriate CIA spying, in a story now clouded in the US media by amnesia and self-censorship, also contributed mightily to the current mess in Iraq. Throughout 1998, international arms inspectors met with stonewalling on the part of Saddam Hussein. Hussein refused to cooperate with UN teams, charging that these teams were filled with "American spies and agents." Whatever his ulterior motives for making such claims, it turns out that Hussein was right. On February 2, 1999, the Washington Post reported that the US had "infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the UN agency." Similar reports appeared in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. Remarkably, these papers backed away from their own stories during the recent build-up to war, characterizing as "allegations" what they once reported as fact.

One can despise Hussein and still recognize that, like all rulers, he had an interest in sustaining his power. Thus, it was entirely predictable that he would not react kindly to covert efforts at his undoing. UNSCOM dissident Scott Ritter, for one, appreciated this simple logic. He noted that CIA spying violated the letter and spirit of the inspections. He walked away from UNSCOM and cried foul. The US and not Hussein, he insisted, had broken the deal. For saying this, he was savaged by the Bush administration and ridiculed by the media.

The removal of the inspectors proved disastrous. With them gone, the world had only a murky picture of the status of Iraqi WMD, paving the way for the Bush administration`s vaporous, bellicose, and ultimately fatuous claims of the "grave and gathering" Iraqi threat.

Approving the Case for War

The CIA, on closer inspection, also played a vital role in making the phony case for war. Whatever the probity of lower-level analysts, recently resigned Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet-the CIA official who ultimately calls the shots-backed the administration on claims about Iraqi WMD when it mattered most. Tenet admits to signing off on Bush`s infamous statement in the January 2002 State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to purchase yellow cake uranium from the African nation of Niger. Weeks later, Tenet sat at Colin Powell`s side as the Secretary made his case before the UN. Most damning, Bob Woodward now reports that Tenet told Bush he had a "slam dunk" case on WMD, despite the President`s alleged skepticism when hearing that case in the Oval Office from senior CIA analysts. Bush finalized the decision to go to war just days later.

Such callow subservience from the Director of Central Intelligence is, unfortunately, nothing new. The mostly costly-and painfully relevant-past case is Vietnam. As early as 1965, the mid-level analyst Sam Adams systematically showed that America`s main foe, the Viet Cong, had far greater numbers and popular support in South Vietnam than President Johnson, his war planners, or even CIA Director Richard Helms had cared to appreciate. The dire implication was that proposed troop escalations would provide only more cannon fodder for an enemy too big and determined to defeat. Intelligence Officer Ralph McGehee similarly found communists everywhere in the border states of Laos and Thailand.

These honorable and almost quaintly patriotic men, rather than being listened to and rewarded by their superiors, were ignored and demoted. McGehee, after being canned from his post in Thailand, attended a briefing by William Colby, the head of the CIA`s euphemistically titled Civilian Operations and Rural Development Support Team in Vietnam (and Helms`s successor as CIA Director), in Saigon in 1968. McGehee witnessed a nightmarish scene in which the CIA`s top men, trading figures about "VC Kills" and meaningless intelligence reports, appeared unwilling or unable to stop fighting a fruitless and immoral war. At his most anguished, McGehee writes in his 1983 memoir Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA, he contemplated hanging a banner reading "Fuck the CIA" or "the CIA lies" from the roof of the agency`s Saigon headquarters and throwing himself off.

We can only guess if the deceptive case for war in Iraq has led to similar despair within the CIA`s lower ranks. Whatever the case, the agency appears to be implicated in the most recent and most ugly scandal to emerge from the US occupation. Photos of abuses at Iraq`s Abu Graib prison recall other nefarious aspects of the CIA`s conduct in Vietnam. In a counter-insurgency effort named "Operation Phoenix" the CIA for years oversaw the systematic imprisonment, abuse, and killing of Viet Cong suspects. Rife with arbitrary detentions of innocents and score-settling by unscrupulous South Vietnamese operatives, the Operation degenerated into what one observer called a "counter-productive bloodbath" that claimed as many as 40,000 lives.

On May 11, Maj. General Taguba confirmed in testimony before the Senate that CIA officers were involved in controversial interrogations at Abu Graib. Taguba did not elaborate, however, on their conduct. On the one hand it appears that the agency, in Iraq and elsewhere, may have been less reckless and abusive than teams operating under Donald Rumsfeld. Taguba`s testimony came just days before Seymour Hersh`s story that the Secretary of Defense had set up a Special Access Program (SAP) to handle, among other things, sensitive interrogations in Iraq. Compounding the raging internal conflict between the Department of Defense and the CIA (which may well have contributed to Tenet`s resignation), the SAP was composed of teams which operated outside the CIA and which ultimately earned the agency`s stern objections. On the other hand, it is clear that the CIA bears significant culpability in the international scandal. On May 12 The New York Times reported the claims of an Afghani man who said he was subject to physical abuse and sexual sadism at the hands of CIA officials while imprisoned last June. The Washington Post confirmed the same week the existence of a CIA-run global gulag in which hundreds of suspects in the "war on terror" are held in far-flung ultra-secret locations beyond the bounds of oversight and, one may fear, any credible standard of humane conduct. A full account of the CIA`s role in the torture scandal awaits further journalistic and congressional investigations.

Abolishing the CIA?

While the CIA has yet to take heat for these abuses, intelligence failures about the 9/11 plot and WMDs in Iraq have produced some discussion about how US intelligence agencies might be reformed. The release of two reports about the CIA, as well as the report from the 9-11 Commission report, further ratcheted up such talk. The resignation of George Tenet also amplified mainstream calls for reform. But current prescriptions tend to call only for the reshuffling of certain administrative responsibilities and for bureaucratic shifts to allow for greater coordination between agencies like the CIA, the FBI and the military intelligence bureaus. Such changes will not deal with the core, historic problems: lack of oversight, the politicization of intelligence, and the use of covert operations by the executive for immoral purposes.

These problems create the need for critical reexamination of the CIA`s original mission. Observers have expressed the concern that the CIA, in effect, makes foreign policy immune to external checks, or at the very least serves as a tool of presidential discretion. For years, the CIA`s sense of the holiness of its mission and attending obsession with secrecy muted these concerns. During the Cold War, when anti-communism had the status of a crusade, the CIA saw itself as a super-patriotic elect, vested with the solemn duty of protecting the republic. Their message was essentially, "If you knew what we know about the dangers of the world, you would act as we do. For reasons of national security, however, you can know neither what we know nor what we do. You`ll have to trust us." By and large, the public did, and the CIA`s doctrine of "plausible deniability" successfully parried periodic allegations of wrongdoing.

It took a litany of grim revelations in the 1970s about the CIA`s conduct-from assassination attempts, to illegal domestic spying, to the training of death squads-to shatter this trust and force serious reconsideration of the CIA`s functioning. McGehee concluded from his years of service, "the CIA is not now nor has ever been a central intelligence agency. It is the covert action arm of the President`s foreign policy advisers. In this capacity it supports or overthrows foreign governments while reporting `intelligence` justifying those activities." Moderate critics worked to make the approval of covert operations and oversight process more rigorous-reforms largely undone under President Ronald Reagan, again plunging the agency into scandal.

September 11, 2001, in a tragic flash, gave the CIA a new over-arching purpose-to defend the US against a global terrorist enemy-and restored its bruised reputation. Once again, the CIA posed as the vanguard force in protecting the American way of life. An attitude of blind trust in the agency and the President`s use of it again became the norm.

Bush and the CIA itself have begun to undermine that trust. In this context progressives, surveying the agency`s grim past and fearing the worst for the future, may again simply advocate the abolition of the CIA. But since this demand is very unlikely to be met in the current political climate, it should not substitute for more immediate short-term calls to ensure, at a minimum, that US intelligence agencies offer credible information immune to political manipulation, respect human rights, and avoid alienating the international community. On the intelligence side, the US needs a process for the neutral assessment of national security risks-a screen or buffer between the CIA and the executive to prevent more deadly deceits. Even mainstream lawmakers acknowledge that the current stakes are simply too high to have intelligence manipulated for private agendas or partisan aims. (False claims of threats, for example, may lead the world to accuse the US of crying wolf when real ones emerge.) With regard to covert operations, Congress must withdraw the blank check it gave the President after 9/11 to make war how, where, and when he sees fit, with virtually no accountability.

Explicit awareness of the CIA`s shameful human rights record must be a central part of evaluating the agency`s operations. In the post-9/11 era, we have painfully relearned that blind trust and the pernicious idea that the imperative of national security justifies anything done in its name is a recipe for political and moral disaster.

-- Mark Engler, a writer based in New York City, can be reached via the web site http://www.DemocracyUprising.com. Jeremy Varon is the author of "Bringing the War Home: The Weather Underground, the Red Army Faction, and Revolutionary Violence in the Sixties and Seventies." Research assistance for this article provided by Jason Rowe.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

He(Kerry) is inconstant, an effete elitist who lives in a lah-de-dah neighborhood, speaks a foreign language, keeps changing his mind on everything from Vietnam to Iraq. This signals that Kerry is culturally different from ordinary folks (like Bush) and that if he wavers on everything else, you can`t trust him to be resolute on terrorists. das ist m.E. einer der Hauptpunkte weshalb Kerry Schwierigkeiten hat. Er spricht eine andere Sprache, die der einfache Bürger nicht versteht, in der Art von "es ist wichtig zu entscheiden, was die Bedeutung von `ist` ist".
Die Vietnam-Debatte hat nach allen Umfragen wenig dazu beigetragen, genauso viel Einfluß für Bush hat auch die Diskussion über dessen Dienst bei der Texas Garde.


ROBERT KUTTNER
Kerry must `reframe` Bush -- and fast

By Robert Kuttner | September 15, 2004

JOHN KERRY is in trouble because the Bush campaign has seized control of what psychologists call the "frame" of this year`s presidential contest. Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and company have framed the election starkly: Bush will keep us safe in a time of terror. He will put money in people`s pockets by cutting our taxes, and somehow that will also be good for the economy.

Bush and Cheney have also framed Kerry. He is inconstant, an effete elitist who lives in a lah-de-dah neighborhood, speaks a foreign language, keeps changing his mind on everything from Vietnam to Iraq. This signals that Kerry is culturally different from ordinary folks (like Bush) and that if he wavers on everything else, you can`t trust him to be resolute on terrorists.

If this imagery hardens, Kerry is toast. Experts who study how public issues become framed in people`s minds, like Susan Bales of the FrameWorks Institute, say that you can`t change views merely with evidence. You have to change the frame.

For Kerry and for Democrats, the frustrating reality is that everything important about George Bush and his presidency is a lie. Bush himself is far more of a phony. As several biographies have documented, he virtually fell upwards, benefiting from family connections to survive a dissolute youth, draft avoidance, and several business failures. But Bush has seized the iconography of the honest cowboy, the regular guy clearing brush on his Texas ranch, the war hero arriving by fighter plane to rescue America. That Kerry actually served in combat, that he made his way upwards with far less family help, gets buried under the smears.

Bush`s presidency has been an even bigger lie, beginning with the dishonest way he assumed office and the gap between his moderate posture and his extremist policies. There is such a huge medley of lies that a challenger almost doesn`t know where to start.

The tax cuts didn`t create jobs. No Child Left Behind is big government without the resources. The deficit will sandbag the economy for decades. The Medicare drug plan is a fake. Privatizing Social Security will leave retirees worse off.

And his national security policy is worse. Whether the venue is Iraq, the phony case for war and the disastrous aftermath, the hit-and-run policy in Afghanistan, North Korea`s quest for nuclear weapons, or the vaunted "war on terror" and the Keystone Kops Homeland Security Department, it all leaves America and the world less safe.

But the ordinary citizen is gulled by the stagecraft and numbed by the details. And if Kerry tries to explain the particulars, he plays policy wonk to Bush`s John Wayne.

Bush and Cheney keep grabbing headlines with ever more outrageous lies. Just this week, speaking in Michigan, Bush described Kerry`s health plan as "a government takeover of health care." In fact, the plan would have government compensate private health plans that faced excessive insurance losses because they had sicker-than-average members. The political press, rather than explaining Bush`s lie, played the story as mere attack and counterattack.

In an ideal, civics book democracy, citizens would explore the details and vote based on the merits. But in our frantic, overworked daily lives, where talk show rants pass for public discourse, the truth gets buried by the rhetoric, and the imagery of leadership wins the day.

Successful candidates have seized on a big theme that carried within it both the hopes of ordinary people and the seeds of a program. John Kennedy did it with his "We can do bettah." Bill Clinton succeeded with "putting people first." The idea that people who work hard and play by the rules should earn enough to live decently combined respect for the struggles of ordinary people with the idea that government could help. Ronald Reagan turned the national pessimism of the Carter years into a sunny "Morning in America."

So what on earth is John Kerry to do? He cannot possibly win a hearing to challenge all that is fake about Bush and his policy particulars unless he first changes the frame. First, he needs to reframe Bush by pounding on all the ways that Bush is a fraud, and he needs to do it with grace and wit. Second, he needs a clear, simple vision of a secure, prosperous America more compelling than Bush`s vision.

If Kerry doesn`t have the nerve to take on Bush, voters will conclude that he lacks the nerve to protect America. Kerry has about two weeks to break the frame before the election freezes into a lock.

Robert Kuttner`s is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 15, 2004
New Iraq Attacks Are More Complicated
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 5:53 p.m. ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The scale and sophistication of militant attacks in Iraq are steadily increasing, with coordinated strikes and complicated ambushes that increasingly hit their targets, officials and analysts said Wednesday.

The spike in bloodshed -- more than 200 dead in four days -- has stifled American hopes that the transfer of sovereignty and the prospect of a democratic vote in four months could take the steam out of the uprising and pave the way for a reduction in U.S. troops.

Instead, there are signs the Americans and their Iraqi allies are facing an enemy more determined than ever. Insurgents have learned from past mistakes and shifted strategy, cooperating more closely with each other and devising new ways to put their relatively simple arsenal to treacherous use.

``More thought is going into the execution of the attacks,`` said Lt. Col. Paul Hastings of Task Force Olympia, which is trying to bring stability to a swath of northeastern Iraq.

Militants now follow up roadside bomb attacks with a deluge of rocket-propelled grenades instead of fleeing, or fire off mortar rounds to lure soldiers out of their base and into freshly laid mine fields, military commanders say.

In a July attack in Samarra, for example, militants detonated a car bomb and then hammered a military headquarters with a mortar barrage as troops fled the building. Five American soldiers died.

At least 47 people were killed in a car bombing in Baghdad on Tuesday targeting would-be police recruits, the deadliest single strike in the capital in six months.

``The enemy has been able to construct IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) that are more complex, include more rounds in the form of a ``daisy chain,`` and tend to have a higher lethality,`` said Maj. Neal O`Brien of the Army`s 1st Infantry Division.

O`Brien also said that an increase in the use of car bombs in the last two months coincided with an influx of foreign fighters with the bomb-making know-how in July.

``They graduated to more coordinated attacks,`` he said.

On Sunday, militants in Baghdad struck the U.S.-guarded Green Zone -- the seat of the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy -- with their biggest mortar and rocket barrage to date, many of them showing signs of careful aim.

Hours later, guerrillas used a car bomb to disable a U.S. patrol on a main Baghdad thoroughfare before detonating a second car bomb that wrecked a Bradley fighting vehicle sent to assist the patrol. They then opened fire on the wounded crewmen as they fled the vehicle.

``The set of attacks that occurred over the weekend were definitely more simultaneous than in the past,`` said Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, spokesman for coalition forces in Baghdad.

Analysts say the plethora of armed groups behind the insurgency are increasingly working together.

``As time goes on, various gangs get together and it does become more coordinated,`` said Judith Kipper, a Middle East expert at the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations. ``Groups start small, get know-how and become more lethal over time.``

American commanders, however, insist the stepped-up attacks and the possibility of increased cooperation among militant groups are signs that the insurgents have realized time is running out for them with the onset of elections in January.

``There is a level of desperation associated with the anti-Iraqi forces, they absolutely don`t want to see free elections and reconstruction projects work,`` Hastings said.

But the attacks have fueled a growing backlash against the United States and interim Iraqi Prime Minster Ayad Allawi.

``The situation is getting worse day after day and the American are still in the streets,`` said Kawakib Butris, 40, a supermarket worker in Baghdad. ``This government didn`t ensure the simplest things to us like security, electricity and other services.``

In response to the growing violence, the Bush administration announced plans this week to divert about $3.5 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds for security and the training of Iraqi forces.

NATO, however, moved close to an agreement on sending hundreds of military instructors to Iraq, with France and the United States narrowing their differences Wednesday over the mission to run a training center for the country`s new armed forces.

The plan will likely entail the deployment of 200-300 NATO instructors to Iraq and would complement a much larger U.S.-led operation to build new Iraqi armed forces, which are expected to total 260,000.

Iraqi police and national guardsmen have been the focus of many of the recent attacks, creating a challenge for the United States and Allawi as they strive to strengthen the Iraqi security forces.

The ferocity of the insurgency has also raised new doubts about how effectively Washington and Allawi can carry off the elections -- and whether they will be able to wrest control of rebel strongholds such as Fallujah and Ramadi in time to include the cities in the process.

A full-fledged assault may be the only way to restore state authority to Fallujah and Ramadi, even though such a get-tough approach risks alienating the population.

Iraqis, a mostly conservative people, have been deeply angered by some of the practices of the U.S. military, like raiding homes and detaining women, and their failure to restore security more than a year after Saddam Hussein was ousted. While viewing the Americans as infidels or crusaders who want to destroy Islam, many have been won over by what they see as the piety and devotion of Islamic-oriented insurgents.

In places like Fallujah, a hotbed of resistance west of Baghdad, the insurgents have endeared themselves to the local population by spearheading a religious revival and taking over some law enforcement tasks.

``I was very optimistic when the Americans entered Iraq ... but then I was so shocked by their practices that I even joined Fallujah residents in their war against them,`` said Haqi Esmaiel Ibrahim, 25, an accountant at a Baghdad stationery store. ``Because of the bad security situation and kidnap cases, I had to make my two sisters quit school and stay at home.``

The Americans recently launched a series of military operations and opened negotiations with religious and tribal leaders to retake several cities that have fallen into rebel hands, yielding some positive results.

U.S. troops ended their siege of the northwest city of Tal Afar on Tuesday, saying they had cleared it of militants after 12 days of fighting killed dozens of people. The siege ended soon after neighboring Turkey said it would stop cooperating with U.S. forces in Iraq if ethnic Turks continued to be harmed in the crackdown.

On Wednesday, militants fired a rocket-propelled grenade at U.S. and Iraqi soldiers guarding a council building in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad. The assault came just days after the Americans negotiated a deal with local leaders to enter the city without risk of attack.

------

Associated Press reporter Sinan Salaheddin contributed to this report.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 16. September 2004, 8:14
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,318253,00.html

Uno

Annan verurteilt Irak-Krieg als illegal

Uno-Generalsekretär Kofi Annan hat den US-geführten Einmarsch in den Irak als illegal bezeichnet. In einem Interview sagte er, der Irak-Krieg habe gegen die Uno-Charta verstoßen.

Bagdad - Uno-Generalsekretär Kofi Annan hat in einem BBC-Interview seine Auffassung bekräftigt, dass der Krieg gegen den Irak ohne die Billigung des Weltsicherheitsrats einer rechtlichen Grundlage entbehrt habe. Auf dreimalige Nachfrage, ob dies bedeute, dass der Irak-Krieg illegal gewesen sei, antwortete Annan: "Nach unserer Auffassung sowie gemäß der Uno-Charta war dieser Krieg illegal."

Die BBC-Webseite zitierte Annan mit den Worten, die Charta der Vereinten Nationen sei eindeutig in ihrer Vorgabe, unter welchen Umständen die Anwendung von Gewalt gerechtfertigt sei. Wenn die USA und ihre Verbündeten aber ohne Zustimmung des Sicherheitsrats eine Militäroperation starten wollten, dann würde dies den Vorgaben der Uno-Charta widersprechen.

Annan hatte am 10. März 2003 kurz vor der Invasion eine ähnliche Bemerkung gemacht. Die USA und Großbritannien hatten einen Resolutionsentwurf vor dem Sicherheitsrat zurückgezogen, nachdem klar geworden war, dass er keine Zustimmung finden würde. Unter anderem hatte Frankreich ein Veto angedroht.

Annan sagte in dem Interview weiter, es sei wegen der anhaltenden Gewalt im Irak unklar, ob dort im Januar wie geplant Wahlen stattfinden könnten. "Man kann keine glaubwürdigen Wahlen abhalten, wenn die Sicherheitslage weiter so ist wie zurzeit", sagte er. Zwar werde die irakische Regierung diese Entscheidung treffen müssen, jedoch "kann es natürlich einen Punkt geben, an dem wir unsere eigene unabhängige Bewertung treffen müssen."

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 16, 2004
THE RECONSTRUCTION
U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq`s Future
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.

The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.

"There`s a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages. The officials declined to discuss the key judgments - concise, carefully written statements of intelligence analysts` conclusions - included in the document.

The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence. Such estimates can be requested by the White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the intelligence council under George J. Tenet, who stepped down as director of central intelligence on July 9, the government officials said.

As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush administration officials, including comments on Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made.

"You know, every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and hand-wringers who said it can`t be done," Mr. McClellan said at a news briefing. "And every step of the way, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people have proven them wrong because they are determined to have a free and peaceful future."

President Bush, who was briefed on the new intelligence estimate, has not significantly changed the tenor of his public remarks on the war`s course over the summer, consistently emphasizing progress while acknowledging the difficulties.

Mr. Bush`s opponent, Senator John Kerry, criticized the administration`s optimistic public position on Iraq on Wednesday and questioned whether it would be possible to hold elections there in January.

"I think it is very difficult to see today how you`re going to distribute ballots in places like Falluja, and Ramadi and Najaf and other parts of the country, without having established the security,`` Mr. Kerry said in a call-in phone call to Don Imus, the radio talk show host. "I know that the people who are supposed to run that election believe that they need a longer period of time and greater security before they can even begin to do it, and they just can`t do it at this point in time. So I`m not sure the president is being honest with the American people about that situation either at this point.``

The situation in Iraq prompted harsh comments from Republicans and Democrats at a hearing into the shift of spending from reconstruction to security. Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called it "exasperating for anybody look at this from any vantage point," and Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said of the overall lack of spending: "It`s beyond pitiful, it`s beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous."

A spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency declined to comment on any new intelligence estimate.

All the officials who described the assessment said they had read the document or had been briefed on its findings. The officials included both critics and supporters of the administration`s policies in Iraq. But they insisted they not be identified by name, agency or branch of government because the document remained highly classified.

The new estimate revisits issues raised by the intelligence council in less formal assessments in January 2003, the officials said. Those documents remain classified, but one of them warned that the building of democracy in Iraq would be a long, difficult and turbulent prospect that could include internal conflict, a government official said.

The new estimate by the National Intelligence Council was approved at a meeting in July by Mr. McLaughlin and the heads of the other intelligence agencies, the officials said.

Its pessimistic conclusions were reached even before the recent worsening of the security situation in Iraq, which has included a sharp increase in attacks on American troops and in deaths of Iraqi civilians as well as resistance fighters. Like the new National Intelligence Estimate, the assessments completed in January 2003 were prepared by the National Intelligence Council, which is led by Robert Hutchings and reports to the director of central intelligence. The council is charged with reflecting the consensus of the intelligence agencies. The January 2003 assessments were not formal National Intelligence Estimates, however, which means they were probably not formally approved by the intelligence chiefs.

The new estimate is the first on Iraq since the one completed in October 2002 on Iraq`s illicit weapons program. A review by the Senate Intelligence Committee that was completed in July has found that document to have been deeply flawed.

The criticism over the document has left the C.I.A. and other agencies wary of being wrong again in judgments about Iraq.

Declassified versions of the October 2002 document included dissents from some intelligence agencies on some crucial questions, including the issue of whether Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. The government officials who described the new estimate on the prospects for Iraq would not say if it had included significant dissents.

On Wednesday night, Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security Council, confirmed the existence of the intelligence estimate, but he declined to discuss its contents in detail because they were classified. But he said the document "makes clear why it is so important to stand with the Iraqi people as they face these challenges.``

Mr. McCormack said that in describing "different possible scenarios for Iraq`s political and economic future over the course of 18 months,`` the document had made clear that "Iraq`s future will be determined by a number of different factors, include the nation`s economic progress, the effectiveness of Iraq`s political structure, and security and stability.``

He added: "In the past, including before the war to liberate Iraq, there were many different scenarios that were possible, including the outbreak of civil war. It hasn`t happened. The Iraqi people continue to defy the predictions of pundits and others.``

Separate from the new estimate, Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued other warnings on Wednesday about the American campaign in Iraq, saying the administration`s request to divert more than $3 billion to security from the $18.4 billion aid package of last November was a sign of trouble.

"Although we recognize these funds must not be spent unwisely," the committee chairman, Mr. Lugar said, "the slow pace of reconstruction spending means that we are failing to fully take advantage of one of our most potent tools to influence the direction of Iraq."

Less than $1 billion has been spent so far.

The committee`s ranking Democrat, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, one of the harshest critics of the Iraq policies, was far more outspoken. "The president has frequently described Iraq as, quote, `the central front of the war on terror,` " Mr. Biden went on. "Well by that definition, success in Iraq is a key standard by which to measure the war on terror. And by that measure, I think the war on terror is in trouble."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 16, 2004
UNFRIENDLY FIRE
Civilian Dead, and Bitterness: No Way to Bridge the Rage?
By DEXTER FILKINS

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 15 - In a remarkable appearance, the commander of American forces in Baghdad stood before a roomful of Arab and Western reporters on Wednesday, trying to explain the confusing events that led to the deaths of Iraqi civilians at the hands of his men.

American generals do not often do such things, but the deaths of 13 Iraqis, including a young girl and a television cameraman, whose last moments have been replayed across televisions in the Middle East, prompted the commander, Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, to try to explain how such a lamentable thing had come to pass.

The answer, the general said, lay in the grim necessities of the fight, a duel between Iraqi insurgents who had crippled a Bradley armored vehicle and two American helicopters. Mixed in with the insurgents were a number of civilians. The helicopters loosed their rockets only after they had taken fire themselves, General Chiarelli said, from somewhere in the crowd.

"We wanted to explain, particularly to the Iraqi people, that we do everything we can to eliminate collateral damage," General Chiarelli said, in a conference room inside the American headquarters known as Camp Victory. Then he turned to the subject of the Iraqi civilians who had been killed Sunday.

"I grieve their losses and give my condolences to their families," the general said.

Yet although General Chiarelli said he was saddened by the deaths of the innocent Iraqis, he firmly defended the actions of his men.

"The actions of our soldiers and pilots were well within their rights," he said.

The appearance of General Chiarelli and his deputy, Col. Jim McConville, stemmed in part from the televised death of Mazen Tomeizi, a Palestinian producer for Al Arabiya television. Mr. Tomeizi was killed while standing in front of the burning Bradley. He died on the air.

Film broadcast on Al Arabiya showed a crowd of mostly young men and boys around the Bradley, but showed no evidence that anyone was either armed or fighting. The film shows an explosion, and Mr. Tomeizi going down. Blood splatters on the camera lens.

Yet if General Chiarelli was trying to mollify Iraqi opinion with his appearance, the skepticism expressed by the Arabic-speaking journalists suggested he still had some way to go.

"Why don`t you use small weapons, rather than missiles?" asked an Arabic-speaking reporter. "We know an innocent Iraqi was killed. Why not just disperse the crowd?"

"As you say, the pilot was so sweet," another Arab-speaking journalist said, referring to a member of the American helicopter crew. "But you didn`t mention anything about the journalist who was there."

The most bitter words came, not surprisingly, from a reporter at Al Arabiya, who told the Americans that they had blasted the Bradley and killed those around it even though, as the tape showed, no one near it was firing a gun.

"The tape does not show any shots coming from the tank," said the reporter, Hadeer al-Rubaie. "We have the tape. We have proof."

"Your soldiers do not have any discipline," Ms. Rubaie said. "Why don`t you go out of the cities, and face the terrorists somewhere else?"

General Chiarelli and Colonel McConville addressed those questions in some detail, if not to the satisfaction of everyone present. By so doing, they spelled out the challenges faced by American soldiers in Iraq as they try to carry on in densely populated areas where civilians and insurgents are often impossible to tell apart.

The helicopter strikes against the insurgents on Sunday were the most restrained means available, the officers said. The Americans had wanted to use ground troops to retrieve the Bradley, but six of their soldiers had already been wounded.

The helicopters could have fired their rockets from three or four miles away, Colonel McConville said, which would have been much safer for the pilots. They moved in close, putting themselves in greater danger, to try to avoid Iraqi civilians.

When the helicopters passed over the battle site, Colonel McConville said, the pilots took fire from the "vicinity" of the Bradley and fired four rockets. One hit the Bradley.

Still, for all of the discussion about hostile fire, the American officers suggested that there might have been a second motive for shooting the Bradley: to ensure that no one was able to steal the vehicle`s communications equipment.

American officers attending the news conference suggested that the helicopter pilots might have fired at the Bradley not because of hostile fire, but because they feared that the young men who had clambered on top of it might have been trying to strip it of its equipment.

Colonel McConville said the incident was under investigation. But the latter suggestion prompted more derisive comments from the Arabic press.

"To save equipment," Ms. Rubaie said, "you risked the lives of 100 people."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
Strategic Analyses and National Surveys
alles als PDF-Dokumente. Ziemlich umfangreich 15.09.:

http://democracycorps.com/reports/surveys/Democracy_Corps_Se…

http://democracycorps.com/reports/surveys/Democracy_Corps_Se…
Home Page:
http://democracycorps.com/reports/index.html

[Joerver]

September 16, 2004
Failing the Senate Intelligence Test

The Senate has begun the bizarre exercise of anointing Representative Porter Goss as President Bush`s choice as the lame-duck director of central intelligence - as if the halls of Congress were not ringing with proposals to soon change the job drastically by creating a superchief of national intelligence. Making the appointment is part of Mr. Bush`s efforts to convince voters that he is responding to the 9/11 commission`s report on the alarming intelligence follies before Sept. 11, 2001, and the invasion of Iraq. But the nation needs the kind of deep, organic reform proposed by the independent 9/11 commission, and by serious proposals for change that are now being debated in Congress, not this kind of cosmetic gamesmanship.

Once President Bush finally endorsed the creation of a national intelligence director, with authority over the Central Intelligence Agency and a dozen other intelligence organs, he should have dropped the Goss appointment. For one thing, the job amounts to a rehab work in progress. For another, Mr. Goss is a Florida Republican who has already played election-year politics by mischaracterizing the intelligence record of Senator John Kerry.

Mr. Goss also hardly embodies the independent thinking that was sorely missing before 9/11 and the misadventures of Iraq. A former C.I.A. officer, Mr. Goss built a record in Congress more protective than probing about the C.I.A.`s performance. This week, Mr. Goss gravely warned that the C.I.A. would need more than five years to repair its flaws - raising the question of where he has been, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, in prodding such reform for the past three years, since 9/11. Originally an opponent of the 9/11 commission, Mr. Goss stands as a key player in the dysfunctional Congressional oversight that the panel found to be a critical factor in the nation`s intelligence failures.

These would be reasons enough to disqualify Mr. Goss. But now we have the likelihood that if he is confirmed and Congress reforms the intelligence apparatus, Mr. Goss may then become President Bush`s prime candidate as the new multiagency czar. If Mr. Bush is serious about intelligence reform, he should shelve Mr. Goss`s appointment and let Congress do its job.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 16, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Pre-emptive Paranoia
By MAUREEN DOWD

Here`s how bad off the Democrats are: They`re cowering behind closed doors, whispering that if it should ever turn out that Republicans are behind this, it would be so exquisitely Machiavellian, so beyond what Democrats are capable of, they should just fold and concede the election now - before the Republicans have to go to the trouble of stealing it again.

There`s no evidence - it`s just a preposterous, paranoid fantasy at this point. But it speaks to the jitters of the Democrats that they`re consumed with speculation about whether Karl Rove, the master of dirty tricks and surrogate sleaze, could have set up CBS in a diabolical pre-emptive strike to undermine damaging revelations about Bush 43`s privileged status and vanishing act in the National Guard, and his odd refusal to take his required physical when ordered.

In this vast left-wing conspiracy theory, Mr. Rove takes real evidence on W.`s shirking and transfers it to documents doomed to be exposed as phony (thereby undermining the real goods), then funnels it through third parties to Dan Rather, Bush 41`s nemesis on Iran-contra. A perfect bank shot.

The secretary for W.`s squadron commander in the Texas Guard told The Times that the information in the disputed memos is correct - it`s just the memos that seem fake.

"It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that together,`` said a lucid 86-year-old Marian Carr Knox, who was flown up to New York yesterday by beleaguered CBS News executives.

She told Mr. Rather that her boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, wrote a "cover-your-back file,`` a "personal journal`` to keep a record about the politically connected Bush in his charge. She said the contents of that mirrored the CBS documents, but she said those documents were not on the right forms and contained Army terms rather than Air National Guard argot. She confirmed that young Bush had disobeyed a direct order from Colonel Killian to take a physical.

"It was a big no-no to not follow orders,`` she said, adding that the Bush scion`s above-the-rules attitude caused some snickers and resentment among fellow officers.

Those who suspect Mr. Rove note that when he was Bill Clements`s campaign strategist in a 1986 governor`s race in Texas, he was accused of bugging his own office to distract from a debate, according to James Moore and Wayne Slater, authors of "Bush`s Brain.`` They said it turned the election because after that, the Democrat could not get any attention.

Was the same scenario playing out yesterday evening on CNN? After a five-minute report on the CBS memo controversy, CNN spent about 30 seconds reporting that two more marines had been killed in Iraq.

House Republicans started clamoring for a Congressional inquiry into the documents used by "60 Minutes,`` saying it might be an attempt to manipulate the election. (Isn`t that what the Democrats are scared the Republicans are doing?)

These same Republicans never wanted investigations into missing W.M.D., why Congress passed a Medicare bill based on faulty figures, Abu Ghraib or even whether those Swiftie guys were lying, for Pete`s sake.

The Democratic paranoia is a measure of the intimidation the West Wing is wielding in a race where John Kerry can`t seem to take advantage of any of the Bush administration`s increasingly calamitous blunders.

The administration has been so dazzling in misleading the public with audacious, mendacious malarkey that the Democrats fear the Bushies are capable of any level of deceit.

Iraq is a vision of hell, and the Republicans act as if it`s a model kitchen. The president and vice president brag about liberating Iraqis and reassure us that they are stopping terrorist violence at its source and inspiring democracy in the region by bringing it to blood-drenched Iraq.

But what they haven`t mentioned is that they have known since July that their rosy scenarios are as bogus as their W.M.D. That`s when the president received a national intelligence estimate that spelled out "a dark assessment of prospects" for stability and governance in Iraq in the next 18 months, as Douglas Jehl wrote in today`s Times. Worst-case estimates include civil war or anarchy.

Unlike the president, the young men and women trying to stay alive in the unraveling chaos of Iraq can`t count on their daddies to get them out of the line of fire.

Thomas L. Friedman is on book leave.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article


Published on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 by Knight-Ridder
Surge in Violence Threatens Iraq Elections, US Exit Strategy
by Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel


WASHINGTON - The U.S. strategy to create a stable, democratic Iraq is in danger of failing, current and former U.S. officials say, and the anti-American insurgency is growing larger, more sophisticated and more violent.

A wave of brazen attacks across Iraq has included the deadliest single bombing in Baghdad in six months on Tuesday and at least seven bombings in the capital on Sunday.

The violence increasingly appears to threaten nationwide elections planned for January, which are key to President Bush`s hopes for reducing the number of U.S. troops, now 140,000, and making a graceful exit from Iraq.

Many experts on Iraq say the best that can be hoped for now is continued chaos that falls short of a civil war.

"The overall prospects ... are for a violent political future," said Jeffrey White, a former senior Defense Intelligence Agency analyst.

Top Bush administration officials publicly acknowledge that the insurgency is getting worse. But they point out that they predicted it would do that as Iraq`s January elections approached.

The officials insist that the elections will go ahead. And, they say, the United States has no choice but to persevere as it builds up Iraq`s own security forces to maintain order.

"Over time, you will see it being brought under control," Secretary of State Colin Powell said of the insurgency in a Sunday television interview. "We said at the time of turnover (of power to interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi`s government) that this is the time of maximum danger as the insurgents come after us."

One senior administration official deeply engaged in Iraq policy said the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the huge Central Intelligence Agency station there and the U.S. military command are working together far better than they previously did and collecting much better and more refined information on the insurgency. However, the official said, the recent improvements may not be enough to overcome setbacks caused by mistakes that date back to inadequate prewar planning.

"We`ve finally got our act together, but it`s probably too late," said the official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he`s more pessimistic than the administration`s official line on Iraq.

The insurgency, meanwhile, has gained strength.

White, the former DIA analyst, who`s now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said his conservative estimate is that there are some 100,000 Iraqis involved in the Sunni insurgency, including fighters, messengers and people who provide logistical, housing and other assistance. He discounted estimates by senior U.S. military commanders that the Sunni resistance numbers about 5,000 fighters.

Bush and Allawi face a series of unpleasant choices in the crucial weeks ahead.

They can continue escalating attacks against rebel-held cities in the so-called "Sunni triangle" and against followers of militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. But that`s almost certain to bring more civilian casualties and more anger at the United States and Allawi`s unelected government.

Or they can press forward with elections in Iraq`s relatively stable areas, which are predominantly Shiite and Kurdish. But that risks bringing to power an overtly religious Shiite government likely to be rejected by Iraq`s Kurdish and Sunni Muslim minorities.

In tacit recognition of the ugly realities, the Bush administration on Tuesday announced that it`s asking Congress to shift almost $3.5 billion from Iraqi reconstruction projects to improve security.

The funds would be used to train more Iraqi police and security forces, boost oil production, reduce Iraq`s debt and prepare for the elections. The money would come from funds earmarked for the reconstruction of water, sewage and electricity services, although officials said there would be sufficient amounts left to continue those efforts.

"The security situation presents the most serious obstacle to reconstruction and economic and political development in Iraq," said Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman. A reassessment team led by U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte "faced hard choices, but they decided that without a significant reallocation of resources to the security and law enforcement sector, the short-term stability of Iraq would be compromised and the longer-term prospects for a free and democratic Iraq undermined."

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., said he was skeptical that shifting funds would help.

"I think Congress is being asked to put a Band-Aid on a bleeding wound," he said.

In Baghdad, Allawi, who faces growing popular discontent because of the security situation, promised citizens Monday that his government has a security plan and said the situation will improve as quickly as October. He hasn`t offered a specific plan but insisted Iraq will hold elections for an interim assembly in January.

But counterinsurgency specialists say the Bush administration appears to be caught in a trap that`s afflicted many foreign occupiers in centuries past: Too little military force allows rebels to flourish, but too much causes a popular backlash and increases grass-roots support for the insurgents.

"This is the classic contradiction of counterinsurgency," said Steven Metz of the Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, Pa. "In the long term, winning the people matters more. But it may be that in the short term, you have to forego that in order to crush the insurgents. Right now, we are trying to decide whether we have reached that point.

"In Vietnam, we waited too long. When we did make that decision in 1970, it was too late."

Metz, of the war college`s Strategic Studies Institute, said the spike in the insurgency may be temporary, and that it`s too early to determine whether the insurgency will succeed in derailing the U.S.-led efforts to build a stable, democratic Iraq.

But others are far less optimistic.

"We are in a no-win situation," said a former senior U.S. intelligence official who`s spent time in Iraq but spoke on condition of anonymity.

"I just don`t see where we are headed. I think it`s getting worse. I don`t think we can hold the elections. If we do, we are going to hand the country over to the Shi`ia religious parties. The secular Shi`ias are not properly organized yet," he said.

This former official and other analysts suspect that, if Bush wins a second term in November, he may be forced to reassess and agree to postpone the Iraqi elections.

The White House, which faces a challenge from Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Iraq, has given no hint of this and insists it`s sticking to the plan.

For now, the U.S. strategy is to try to retake Sunni-dominated cities such as Fallujah that are under insurgents` control and act as bases for attacks on U.S. forces and the Iraqis who support them.

To do that, U.S. military commanders have resorted to increasing use of air power, ordering strikes against the rebels that have occasionally hit civilian targets - including an ambulance that was struck in Fallujah on Monday, according to Iraqi hospital officials.

"Our strategy for the next several months, our political and military strategy will be to recover each of these places and put them firmly back under civilian control, under the control of the Iraqi interim government so that elections can be held," Powell said in the TV interview.

But Powell has declined in recent days to give a flat assurance that the elections will go forward in every city across Iraq.

The elections also are threatened by delays in getting election workers and additional security forces for polling places to Iraq.

The United Nations has declined to increase its staff in Iraq beyond a few dozen because of the violence. Secretary-General Kofi Annan`s top Iraq envoy, Ashran Qazi, warned the Security Council this week that the lack of security in Iraq is halting progress on all fronts, including electoral assistance.

Members of Iraq`s Independent Electoral Commission concede that security concerns have permeated their planning, affecting everything from recruiting workers at local election centers to convincing voters they won`t necessarily be killed for casting a vote.

They say they likely will have to hire 70,000 people to carry out the elections at a time when people who work in the new government are killed and threatened every day.

Farid Ayar, a member of the eight-person commission and its spokesman, said it`s not prepared to talk about what happens if parts of the nation are too dangerous to hold an election.

Our "campaign is directed toward the Iraqis, asking them to forget the past because the elections are for their future," he said. "Our goal is to make the Iraqi people understand freedom."

The linchpin to the U.S. strategy is the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces to take increasing responsibility.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that the effort was making "good progress," with 105,000 Iraqi security forces now trained and equipped, and another 50,000 due to complete the process by the end of the year.

White, the former defense intelligence official, said the spreading insurrections have forced the interim Iraqi regime and U.S.-led coalition onto the offensive before the fledgling Iraqi security forces were ready.

"They can patrol. They can arrest people," he said. "Can they conduct offensive operations against the insurgents? That`s at least months away, if not years away."

Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Nancy A. Youssef in Baghdad contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2004 Knight-Ridder

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Etwas zum Thema, wenn Wahlen etwas verändern würden, hätte man sie4 schon längst abgeschafft.

Die Macht der Zivilgesellschaft in einer imperialen Zeit
von Arundhati Roy
Democracy Now! / ZNet 24.08.2004
Vollständige Transkription der von Arundhati Roy am 16. August 2004in San Francisco, Kalifornien, gehaltenen Rede.

Ich bin gebeten worden über die „Macht der Zivilgesellschaft in einer imperialen Zeit” zu sprechen. Ich bin es nicht gewohnt zu tun was mir aufgetragen wird, aber durch einen glücklichen Zufall ist das genau das Thema über welches ich heute Abend sprechen wollte.

Wenn die Sprache verstümmelt und ihrer Bedeutung beraubt worden ist, was können wir dann unter „Macht der Zivilgesellschaft” verstehen? Wenn Freiheit Besatzung, wenn Demokratie neoliberalen Kapitalismus, wenn Reform Unterdrückung, wenn Worte wie „Bevollmächtigung” und „Friedenserhaltung” einem einen kalten Schauer über den Rücken jagen - dann kann die Bedeutung von „public Power” beliebig ausgesucht werden. Ein Bizepstrainingsgerät, eine öffentliche Powerdusche. Also werde ich „Macht der Zivilgesellschaft” eben zu definieren haben.

In Indien ist Public jetzt ein Hindi-Wort. Es bezeichnet das Volk. In Hindi haben wir sarkar und public, den Staat und die Menschen. Dieser Wortwahl liegt die Annahme zu Grunde, daß der Staat etwas ganz anderes als „das Volk” ist. Diese Unterscheidung hat mit der Tatsache zu tun, daß Indiens Freiheitskampf, obwohl er großartig war, auf keinste Weise revolutionär war. Die indische Elite trat problemlos und elegant in die Fußstapfen der britischen Imperialisten. Eine zutiefst verarmte, eigentlich feudale, Gesellschaft wurde zu einem modernen unabhängigen Nationalstaat. Auch heute noch, fünfzig Jahre danach, betrachten die wirklich Verlorenen den Staat als Mai-Baap, als elterlichen Fürsorger. Die etwas radikaleren, jene die noch immer Feuer im Bauch haben, bezeichnen ihn mit Chor, den Dieb, jemand der alles an sich reißt.

In jedem Fall ist Sarkar, für die meisten InderInnen etwas anderes als das Volk. Aber sobald man auf der indischen sozialen Leiter emporkommt verschwimmt die Unterscheidung zwischen dem Sarkar und dem Volk. Der indischen Elite fällt es wie allen anderen Eliten auf dieser Welt sehr schwer sich vom Staat zu unterscheiden. Sie sieht wie der Staat, sie denkt wie der Staat, sie spricht wie der Staat.

In den Vereinigten Staaten ist die Verwischung der Grenzen zwischen Sarkar und Volk viel gründlicher geschehen und ist tiefere Schichten der Gesellschaft gedrungen. Das könnte ein Zeichen für eine robuste Demokratie sein, aber leider ist es etwas komplizierter und unerfreulicher als das. Unter anderem hat es mit dem fein ausgearbeiteten Netz der Paranoia zu tun, welches der U.S. Sarkar, die Massenmedien der Konzerne und Hollywood gesponnen haben. Gewöhnliche AmerikanerInnen sind so manipuliert worden, daß sie sich für ein Volk im Belagerungszustand halten deren einzige Rettung und deren einziger Beschützer ihre Regierung ist. Wenn es nicht die Kommunisten sind, ist es al-Kaida. Wenn es nicht Kuba ist, ist es Nicaragua. Als Konsequenz wird diese mächtigste Nation der Welt - mit ihrem konkurrenzlosen Waffenarsenal, ihrer historischen Bereitschaft endlose Kriege zu führen und zu unterstützen, und diese einzige Nation welche jemals wirklich Atombomben benutzt hat - von einer von Angst gepeinigten Bürgerschaft bewohnt, welche aufspringt, wenn ein Schatten vorbeihuscht. Einem Volk welches nicht durch soziale Dienste, oder öffentliche Gesundheitsversorgung, oder Arbeitsgarantien an den Staat gebunden ist, sondern durch Furcht.

Diese synthetisch hergestellte Furcht wird dazu benutzt öffentliche Duldung für weitere Akte der Aggression zu erhalten. Und so geht es weiter, so baut man einen Turm von sich selbst erfüllenden Hysterien, welche nun ganz formell durch die verblüffenden, in technicolor gehaltenen, Terroralarmstufen der U.S. Regierung feinabgestimmt werden: Fuchsia, Türkis, Lachsrosa.

Für Beobachter von außerhalb macht es diese Verschmelzung von Sarkar und Zivilgesellschaft in den Vereinigten Staaten oft schwer die Taten der U.S. Regierung von jenen des amerikanischen Volkes zu unterscheiden. Es ist diese Verwirrung welche den Antiamerikanismus auf der Welt anflammt. Antiamerikanismus wird dann von der U.S. Regierung aufgegriffen und mithilfe ihrer getreuen Medien ausgestrahlt. Sie kennen die Routine: „Warum hassen sie uns? Sie hassen unsere Freiheit” ... usw. ... usw. Dies verstärkt das Gefühl der Isolation unter den AmerikanerInnen und macht die Umarmung von Sarkar und Gesellschaft sogar noch enger. Wie das kleine Rotkäppchen, das zum Knuddeln zum Wolf ins Bett springt.

Die Bedrohung eines äußeren Feindes dafür zu gebrauchen ein Volk für seine Zwecke aufmarschieren zu lassen ist ein lahmer alter Gaul, auf welchem Politiker seit Jahrhunderten in die Macht geritten sind. Aber könnte es sein, daß die einfachen Menschen diesen alten Gaul satt haben und sich nach etwas anderem sehnen? Es gibt ein altes indisches Filmlied, das geht so: yeh public hai, yeh sab jaanti hai (das Volk, es weiß alles). Wäre es nicht schön, wenn dieses Lied recht hätte, und die PolitikerInnen falsch?

Vor Washingtons illegaler Invasion des Iraks hat eine internationale Gallup-Umfrage gezeigt, daß die Unterstützung für einen im Alleingang durchgeführten Krieg in keinem einzigen europäischen Land mehr als 11 Prozent betrug. Am 15 Februar 2003 gingen nur wenige Wochen vor der Invasion mehr als zehn Millionen Menschen auf verschiedenen Kontinenten gegen den Krieg auf die Straße, auch in Nordamerika. Und doch zogen die Regierungen vieler angeblich demokratischer Länder in den Krieg.

Die Frage ist: ist „Demokratie” noch demokratisch?

Sind demokratische Regierungen den Menschen die sie gewählt haben zur Rechenschaft verpflichtet? Und, was besonders bedeutsam ist, ist das Volk in demokratischen Ländern für die Taten ihres Sarkars verantwortlich?

Wenn man darüber nachdenkt erkennt man, daß die Logik welche dem Krieg gegen den Terrorismus und jene welche dem Terrorismus zugrunde liegt genau die gleiche ist. Beide lassen gewöhnliche Menschen für die Taten ihres Sarkars leiden. Al-Kaida nahm die Leben von Menschen in den Vereinigten Staaten als Rache für Taten ihres Staates in Palästina, Saudiarabien, Irak und Afghanistan. Die U.S. Regierung hat die Menschen in Afghanistan mit tausenden [Toten] für die Taten der Taliban zahlen lassen, und die Menschen im Irak mußten mit hunderttausenden [Toten] für die Taten Saddam Husseins zahlen.

Der entscheidende Unterschied ist, daß niemand Al-Kaida, die Taliban oder Saddam Hussein gewählt hat. Aber der Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten ist gewählt worden (oder naja... wenn man das so nennen will).

Die Permierminister Italiens, Spaniens und Großbritanniens sind gewählt worden. Könnte man dann argumentieren, daß die BürgerInnen dieser Länder für die Taten ihrer Regierungen verantwortlicher sind als die Irakis es für die Taten Saddam Husseins oder die AfghanInnen für jene der Taliban sind?

Wessen Gott entscheidet was ein „gerechter Krieg” ist, und was nicht? George Bush Senior hat einmal gesagt: „Ich werden mich niemals für die Vereinigten Staaten entschuldigen. Es interessiert mich nicht, was die Fakten sind.” Wenn der Präsident des mächtigsten Landes auf dieser Welt sich nicht darum kümmert was die Fakten sind, dann können wir zumindest sicher sien, daß wir ins imperiale Zeitalter eingetreten sind.

Also was bedeutet die Macht der Zivilgesellschaft in einer imperialistischen Zeit? Bedeutet sie überhaupt etwas? Existiert sie überhaupt?

In diesen angeblich demokratischen Zeiten behauptet das konventionelle politische Denken, daß die Macht des Volkes sich in Wahlen ausdrückt. In einer großen Zahl von Ländern werden dieses Jahr Stimmen abgegeben werden. Die meisten (aber nicht alle) werden die Regierung bekommen, für welche sie gestimmt haben. Aber werden sie jene Regierung bekommen, die sie haben wollen?

In Indien haben wir dieses Jahr die Hindu-NationalistInnnen aus dem Amt gewählt. Aber auch als wir das feierten, war uns bewußt, daß bei Atombomben, Neoliberalismus, Privatisierungen, Zensur, riesigen Dämmen - bei jedem Thema außer unverhohlenem Hindu-Nationalismus, der Kongress und die BJP keine größeren ideologischen Unterschiede aufwiesen. Wir wissen, daß es das fünfzig Jahre alte Erbe der Kongresspartei ist, welches das Land kulturell und politisch für die Rechtsextremen vorbereitet hat. Es war auch die Kongresspartei, welche Indiens Märkte als erstes der Globalisierung durch die Konzerne eröffnet hat.

In ihrer Wahlkampagne hat die Kongresspartei angedeutet, daß sie bereit wäre einige Punkte ihrer früheren Wirtschaftspolitik zu überdenken. Millionen von Indiens Ärmsten kamen in großer Stärke hervor um in diesen Wahlen ihre Stimme abzugeben. Das Spektakel der großen indischen Demokratie ist live ausgestraht worden - die alten BäuerInnen, die Alten und Schwachen, die verhüllten Frauen mit ihrem wunderschönen Silberschmuck, welche auf Elefanten, Kamelen und Ochsenkarren wunderliche Reisen zu den Wahlurnen unternahmen. Im Widerspruch zu den Vorhersagen aller Experten und Umfrageinstituten Indiens gewann der Kongress mehr Stimmen als irgendeine andere Partei. Die kommunistischen Parteien Indiens gewannnen einen größeren Anteil der Stimmen als je zuvor. Indiens Arme haben klar gegen die „Wirtschaftsreformen” des Neoliberalismus und gegen den heranwachsenden Faschismus gestimmt. Sobald die Stimmen gezählt wurden, entließen die kommerziellen Medien jene [Armen WählerInnen] wie schlecht bezahlte und überflüssige Personen auf einem Drehort. Die Sender boten nun geteilte Bildschirme. Die eine Hälfte zeigte von außen das Haus von Sonia Gandhi, die Führerin der Kongresspartei, als die Koalitionsregierung zusammengefunden wurde.

Die andere Hälfte zeigte aufgeregte AktienhändlerInnen vor der Börse in Bombay, welche bei dem Gedanken in Panik gerieten, daß die Kongresspartei tatsächlich ihre Versprechen einhalten werde und das Mandat mit dem sie gewählt worden war auch umsetzen würde. Wir sahen wie der Sensex-Index hinauf, hinunter und seitwärts ging. Die Medien, deren eigenen öffentlich gelisteten Aktien an Wert verloren berichteten über den Einsturz an der Börse wie wenn Pakistan Interkontinentalraketen gegen Neu-Delhi abgefeuert hätte.

Noch bevor die neue Regierung formell eingeschworen worden war, machten führende PolitikerInnen der Kongresspartei beruhigende Bekanntmachungen für die Investoren und die Medien; daß nämlich die Privatisierung der öffentlichen Industrien weitergehen werde. Inzwischen hat die BJP, welche jetzt in Opposition ist, zynisch und komisch, damit begonnen ausländische Direktinvestitionen und die weitere Öffnung der indischen Märkte zu kritisieren.

Das ist die unaufrichtige sich weiterentwickelnde Dialektik der Wahldemokratien.

Was die Armen in Indien angeht: sobald sie ihre Stimmen bereitgestellt haben, erwartet man von ihnen, daß sie wieder nach Hause abmarschieren. Die Poltik wird ohne sie gemacht.

Und wie sieht es mit den Wahlen in den USA aus? Haben die WählerInnen in den USA eine echte Wahl?

Es ist wahr, daß wenn John Kerry Präsident wird, sich einige Öltycoons und christliche Fundamentalisten im Weißen Haus ändern werden. Wenige werden traurig darüber sein Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld oder John Ashcroft mitsamt ihrer unverholenen Gaunerei abtreten zu sehen. Aber was wirklich bedenklich ist, ist daß auch in der neuen Verwaltung ihre Politik weitergehen wird. Wir werden Bushismus ohne Bush haben.

Die Positionen mit echter Macht - die Vorsitzenden der Banken, die CEOs - sind durch keine Wahl angreifbar (... und wer es auch wird, beide Seiten werden von diesen finanziert)

Unglücklicherweise hat sich die Wichtigkeit der U.S. Wahlen zu einer Art Persönlichkeitswettkampf verschlechtert. Eine Streiterei darüber, wer besser darin wäre, dem Imperium vorzustehen. John Kerry glaubt genauso stark an die Idee eines Imperiums wie George Bush.

Das politische System der USA ist sorgfältig konstriert worden, so daß niemand der die grundlegende Richtigkeit der militärisch-industriellen-korporativen Machtstruktur bezweifelt durch die Tore der Macht schreiten kann.

Bedenkt man dies, ist es kein Wunder, daß man in dieser Wahl vor zwei Absolventen der Yale Universität steht, welche beide Mitglieder von Skull and Bones sind, der gleichen Geheimgesellschaft; beide sind Millionäre, beide geben sich gerne als Soldaten, beide reden gerne den Krieg hoch und argumentieren fast kindisch darüber, wer den Krieg gegen den Terrorismus besser führen wird.

Wie Präsident Bill Clinton vor ihm, wird Kerry die Expansion der US Wirtschaft und ihre militärische Durchdringung der Welt weiterführen. Er sagt, daß er Bush auch dann die Berechtigung dafür gegeben hätte in den Krieg gegen den Irak zu ziehen wenn er gewußt hätte, daß der Irak keine Massenvernichtungswaffen besitzt. Er verspricht mehr Truppen in den Irak zu entsenden. Er sagte kürzlich, daß er Bushs Politik Israel und Ariel Sharon gegenüber zu 100 Prozent unterstütze. Er sagt, daß er 98% der Steuerkürzungen Bushs beibehalten will.

So liegt unter dem schrillen Austausch von Beleidigungen fast absoluter Konsens. Es sieht so aus, als würden die AmerikanerInnen auch dann Bush bekommen, wenn sie Kerry wählen. Präsident John Kerbush oder Präsident George Berry.

Es ist keine echte Wahl. Es ist eine Scheinwahl. Es ist als wähle man eine Marke von Waschmittel. Egal ob man Ivory Snow oder Tide kauft, sie gehören beide Proctor & Gamble.

Das bedeutet nicht, daß man eine Meinung vertritt, welche keine Abstufungen kennt, daß der Kongress und die BJP, New Labour und die Tories, die Demokraten und die Republikaner ununterscheidbar wären. Das ist natürlich nicht so. Auch nicht bei Tide und Ivory Snow. Tide hat Sauerstoff-Boosting und Ivory Snow ist ein sanfter Reiniger.

In Indien gibt es einen Unterschied zwischen einer offen faschistischen Partei (die BJP), und einer Partei welche schlau eine Gruppe gegen die andere ausspielt (Kongress) und die Saat für den Kommunalismus aussäät, welche dann von der BJP so geschickt geerntet wird.

Bei den heurigen Kandidaten für die U.S. Präsidentschaft gibt es Unterschiede in den I.Q.s und dem Ausmaß ihrer Rücksichtslosigkeit. Die Antikriegsbewegung in den Vereinigten Staaten hat bei der Aufzeigung der Lügen und Käuflichkeit welche zur Invasion des Iraks geführt haben eine phänomenale Arbeit geleistet, trotz der Propaganda und der Einschüchterung die sie erfuhr.

Das war nicht nur ein Dienst für die Menschen hier [in den USA], sondern auch für die ganze Welt. Aber jetzt, wenn die Antikriegsbewegung offen für Kerry wirbt, glaubt der Rest der Welt, daß sie dessen „sensiblen” Imperialismus unterstützt. Ist der Imperialismus der USA besser, wenn er von den Vereinten Nationen und den europäischen Staaten unterstützt wird? Ist es besser wenn die UNO indische und pakistanische Soldaten dazu auffordert, das Töten und Sterben im Irak zu erledigen, anstatt daß die U.S. Soldaten dies tun? Ist die einzige Veränderung auf welche die Irakis hoffen dürfen, daß französische, deutsche und russische Firmen auch bald an der Beute aus der Besatzung ihres Landes Anteil haben dürfen?

Wäre das wirklich besser oder schlechter für jemanden von uns, die wir in untergebenen Ländern leben? Ist es besser für die Welt einen intelligenten Herrscher an der Macht zu haben als einen dummen? Ist das unsere einzige Wahl?

Es tut mir leid; Es ist mir klar, daß dies unangenehme und sogar brutale Fragen sind, aber sie müssen gefragt werden.

Tatsache ist, daß die Wahldemokratie ein Prozess zynischer Manipulation geworden ist. Sie bietet uns heute nur einen sehr eingeengten politischen Raum. Zu glauben, daß dieser Raum eine echte Wahl darstellt wäre naiv.

Die Krise der modernen Demokratie ist eine sehr tief liegende.

Unabhängig von der Gesetzgebung souveräner Staaten stehen internationale Instrumente des Handels und des Geldes einem komplexen System von länderübergreifenden Gesetzen und Verträgen vor, durch welche Methoden der Aneignung festgesetzt und ermöglicht worden sind, die den Kolonialismus kleinlich wirken lassen. Dieses System erlaubt den ungehinderten Transfer riesiger Mengen spekulativen Kapitals - heißen Geldes - in Drittweltländer, und aus ihnen heraus, was diesen in der Praxis ihre Wirtschaftspolitik vorschreibt. Die Fluchtdrohung aufrecht haltend, kann das internationale Kapital sich tiefer und tiefer in diese Wirtschaften saugen. Riesige transnationale Korporationen übernehmen die Kontrolle über ihre wichtigste Infrastruktur und ihre bedeutendsten natürlichen Ressourcen, ihren Bergbau, ihr Wasser, ihre Energieversorgung. Die Welthandelsorganisation, die Weltbank, der Internationale Währungsfond und andere Finanzinstitutionen wie die Asiatische Entwicklungsbank schreiben deren Wirtschaftsprogramme und parlamentarischen Gesetze de facto selbst. Mit einer tödlichen Kombination aus Arroganz und Rücksichtslosigkeit nehmen Sie einen großen Vorschlagshammer, gehen damit in fragile, von einander abhängige, historisch komplexe Gesellschaften, und zerschlagen sie.

Über all diesem weht die Fahne der „Reform”.

Als Konsequenzen dieser Reformen haben in Afrika, Asien und Lateinamerika tausende kleiner Unternehmen und Industrien geschlossen, millionen ArbeiterInnen und BäuerInnen haben ihre Beschäftigung und ihr Land verloren.

In einer Londoner Zeitung, dem Spectator, kann man sich wieder die Zuversicht holen, daß „wir in der glücklichsten, gesündesten und friedlischsten Ära der Menschheitsgeschichte leben”. Milliarden staunen verwundert: Wer ist „wir”? Wo lebt er? Was ist sein christlicher Vorname?

Was man verstehen muß ist, daß die moderne Demokratie stark auf einer nahezu religiösen Akzeptanz des Nationalstaates beruht. Aber die Globalisierung durch die Konzerne ist dadurch nicht gebunden. Und das bewegliche Kapital auch nicht. Und so, obwohl das Kapital die Gewalt des Nationalstaates braucht um Aufstände seiner DienerInnen niederzuschlagen, macht es diese Konstellation für jeden einzelnen Staat unmöglich, sich alleine gegen die Konzernglobalisierung zu stellen.

Radikale Veränderung kann und wird nicht durch Staaten und Regierungen ausverhandelt werden; Sie kann nur von den Menschen erzwungen werden. Eine Zivilgesellschaft welche sich über Grenzen hinweg die Arme reicht.

Wenn wir also von „Der Macht der Zivilgesellschaft in einem imperialen Zeitalter” sprechen, empfindet es hoffentlich niemand als vorschnell anzunehmen, daß das einzige was es wert ist diskutiert zu werden, die Macht einer widersprechenden Zivilgesellschaft ist. Einer Zivilgesellschaft, welche das Konzept des Imperiums an sich ablehnt. Einer Zivilgesellschaft, welche sich als Gegenkraft zur eingesessenen Macht sieht - [welche] gegen internationale, nationale, regionale oder provinzielle Institutionen und Regierungen [auftritt], die dem Imperium dienen und es stützen.

Was für Wege sind Menschen welche sich gegen das Imperium stellen wollen offen? Mit Widerstand meine ich nicht nur die Artikulation einer widersprechenden Auffassung, sondern auch die effektive Erzwingung von Veränderung. Das Imperium spielt in unterschiedlichen Situationen unterschiedliche Karten aus. Es verwendet verschiedene Waffen um verschiedene Märkte aufzubrechen. Sie kennen das, [manchmal ist es] das Scheckbuch und [manchmal] die Cruise Missile.

Den Armen begegnet das Imperium in vielen Ländern nicht immer in der Form von Cruise Missiles und Panzern, wie es im Irak, in Afghanistan und in Vietnam geschah. Es erscheint in der Form verschiedenster Avatars vor Ort in ihrem Leben [Anm.: Ein Avatar ist die Verkörperung einer Gottheit auf Erden] - sie verlieren ihren Job, ihnen werden unbezahlbare Stromrechnungen zugesandt, ihnen wird die Wasserversorgung abgedreht, sie werden von ihren Häusern vertrieben und von ihrem Land entwurzelt. All dies wird von der repressiven Staatsmaschinerie überwacht oder durchgeführt, der Polizei, der Armee, der Justiz. Es ist ein Prozess erbarmungsloser Verarmung mit welchem die Armen historisch gesehen sehr vertraut sind. Das Imperium verstärkt bestehende Ungleichheiten und verschlimmert sie.

Noch bis vor kurzem war es für die Menschen oft schwierig sich als Opfer einer Eroberung des Imperiums zu sehen. Aber nun haben Anstrengungen und Kämpfe vor Ort begonnen ihre Rolle in größerer Klarheit zu sehen. Wie übertrieben dies auch klingen mag, Tatsache ist, daß sie auf verschiedenste Weise das Imperium auf ihre eigene Art konfrontieren. Dies geht im Irak, in Indien und in Argentinien unterschiedlich vor, und wieder anders sieht es auf den Straßen Europas und der Vereinigten Staaten aus.

Massenwiderstandsbewegungen, individuelle AktivistInnen, JournalistInnen, KünstlerInnen und FilmemacherInnen sind zusammengekommen um dem Imperium seinen Glanz zu nehmen. Sie haben die Informationen zusammengeführt und die Cash-Flow-Diagramme und Vorstandsreden in echte Berichte über echte Menschen in echter Verzweiflung verwandelt. Sie haben gezeigt, wie das neo-liberale Projekt Menschen ihren Wohnraum, ihr Land, und ihre Jobs, ihre Freiheit und ihre Würde genommen hat. Sie haben das abstrakte berührbar gemacht. Sie haben dem früher körperlosen Feind einen Körper gegeben.

Das ist ein großartiger Erfolg. Er konnte durch die Zusammenkunft von verschiedenen politischen Gruppen, mit einer Vielzahl von Strategien, erreicht werden. Aber sie alle erkannten, daß das Ziel ihres Ärgers, ihres Aktivismus und ihrer Verbissenheit das gleiche war. Das war der Beginn der echten Globalisierung, der Globalisierung des Dissens.

Grob gesprochen gibt es heute in der Dritten Welt zwei Arten von Massenwiderstandsbewegungen. Die Bewegung der Landlosen LandarbeiterInnen in Brasilien, die Anti-Damm Bewegung in Indien, die Zapatisten in Mexiko, das Anti-Privatisierungs-Forum in Südafrika, und hunderte weitere, kämpfen gegen ihre eigenen souveränen Regierungen, welche zu Agenten des neoliberalen Projekts geworden sind. Viele dieser Anstrengungen sind radikal; sie kämpfen um die Struktur und die Art des Entwicklungsmodells ihrer eigenen Gesellschaft zu verändern.

Dann gibt es jene welche brutale neokoloniale Unternehmungen in umstrittenen Gebieten bekämpfen, deren Grenzen und Bruchlinien in vielen Fällen im vergangenen Jahrhundert künstlich von imperialistischen Mächte eingezeichnet worden sind. In Palästina, Tibet, Tschetschenien, Kaschmir und mehreren Staaten Indiens nordöstlicher Provinzen, kämpfen Menschen für ihre Selbstbestimmung.

Viele dieser Kämpfe waren vielleicht radikal, möglicherweise revolutionär, als sie begannen; aber oft zwingt sie die Brutalität der Unterdrückung in eine konservative, vielleicht sogar reaktionäre, Position aus welcher heraus sie die gleichen brutalen Strategien nutzen und die gleiche Sprache des religiösen und kulturellen Nationalismus sprechen wie die Staaten, welche sie ersetzen wollen.

Viele FußsoldatInnen dieser Anstrengungen wird es wie jenen gehen, welche in Südafrika die Apartheid bekämpft haben. Sobald sie die offensichtliche Besatzung überwunden haben, werden sie bemerken, daß ihnen noch ein großer Kampf bevorsteht - der Kampf gegen den verborgenen wirtschaftlichen Kolonialismus.

Inzwischen, in einer Zeit in welcher die Kluft die Arm und Reich trennt noch tiefer gegraben wird und der Kampf um die Kontrolle der Ressourcen dieser Welt sich intensiviert, wird der wirtschaftliche Kolonialismus durch militärische Angriffe wieder gestärkt.

Der heutige Irak ist ein tragisches Beispiel für diesen Prozeß. Eine illegale Invasion. Eine brutale Besatzung im Namen der Befreiung. Eine Neuauflage der Gesetze, welche den Korporationen eine schamlose Aneignung des Reichtums dieses Landes erlaubt; und jetzt die Scharade einer „irakischen Regierung”.

Aus diesen Gründen ist es absurd den irakischen Widerstand gegen die U.S. Besatzung allein als geistiges Werk von Terroristen, Aufständigen oder Unterstützern Saddam Husseins zu sehen. Wenn die Vereinigten Staaten überfallen und besetzt werden würden, würde dann jeder der kämpft um sie wieder zu befreien TerroristIn oder Bush-AnhängerIn sein?

Der irakische Widerstand kämpft auf der Frontlinie des Kampfes gegen das Imperium. Und daher ist dieser Kampf unser Kampf.

Wie jede Widerstandsbewegung vereinigt diese bunt zusammengewürfelte Faktionen. Frühere Baathisten, Liberale, IslamistInnen, beleidigte Kollaborateure, KommunistInnen, und andere. Selbstverständlich ist sie voll von Opportunismus, inneren Streitigkeiten, Demagogie und Kriminalität. Aber wenn wir nur makellose Bewegungen unterstützen, dann wird keine Widerstandsbewegung unserer moralischen Reinheit würdig sein.

Das soll nicht heißen, daß wir Widerstandsbewegungen nicht kritisieren sollen. Viele von ihnen leiden an einem Demokratiemangel, an einer Verherrlichung ihrer „Führer”, einem Mangel an Transparenz, einem Mangel an Vision und Zielrichtung. Aber am meisten leiden sie an ihrer Vertäufelung, Unterdrückung und einem Mangel an Ressourcen.

Bevor wir vorgeben wie ein moralisch hochwertiger irakischer Widerstand seinen weltlichen, feministischen, demokratischen, gewaltfreien Kampf zu führen hat, sollten wir den Widerstand auf unserer Seite verstärken, und die U.S.A., sowie die mit ihr verbündeten Staaten, dazu zwingen sich aus dem Irak zurückzuziehen.

In den Vereinigten Staaten fand die erste militante Konfrontation zwischen der Bewegung für weltweite Gerechtigkeit und der neoliberalen Junta, wie gut bekannt ist, im September 1999 bei der WTO-Konferenz in Seattle statt. Für viele Massenbewegungen in Entwicklungsländern, wo sie schon seit langem einsam und isoliert gekämpft hatten, war Seattle das erste erfreuliche Zeichen, daß ihr Zorn und ihre Vision für eine andere Art von Welt, von Menschen in den imperialistischen Ländern geteilt wird.

Im Jänner 2001 kamen 20.000 AktivIstinnen, StudentInnen, FilmemacherInnen - einige der besten Köpfe dieser Welt - in Porto Alegre, in Brasilien, zusammen, um ihre Erfahrungen bei und ihre Ideen für die Konfrontation mit dem Imperium auszutauschen. Das war die historisch gewordene Geburt des Weltsozialforums. Es war das erste formale Treffen einer aufregenden, anarchischen, unindoktrinierten, kraftvollen, neuen Art von „Zivilgesellschaft”. Der Aufruf des Weltsozialforums ist „Eine andere Welt ist möglich”. Es ist zu einer Plattform geworden, auf welcher hunderttausende Gespräche, Debatten und Seminare dabei geholfen haben eine Vision auszuarbeiten und ausreifen zu lassen, was für eine Art von Welt dies sein soll.

Im Jänner 2004, als das vierte Weltsozialforum in Mumbai, in Indien, stattfand, zog es 200.000 Menschen an. Ich war noch nie Teil eines so kraftvollen Treffens. Es war ein Zeichen für den Erfolg des Sozialforums, daß die Mainstreammedien in Indien es vollkommen ignorierten. Aber das Weltsozialforum ist wegen seinem Erfolg in Gefahr. Die sichere, offene, festliche Atmosphäre des Forums hat es PolitikerInnen und Nichtregierungsorganisationen (NGOs), welche eng mit dem politischen und wirtschaftlichen System verbunden sind, welches das Forum ablehnt, ermöglicht sich Gehör zu verschaffen.

Eine andere Gefahr ist, daß das Weltsozialforum, welches eine so entscheidende Rolle in der Bewegung für weltweite Gerechtigkeit gespielt hat, ein Ziel für sich wird. Allein die jährliche Organisation verbraucht die Energien einiger der besten AktivistInnen. Wenn Gespräche über Widerstand echten zivilen Ungehorsam ersetzen, dann könnte das Weltsozialforum eine wertvolle Institution für jene werden, denen sich das Forum ursprünglich entgegenstellte. Das Forum muß stattfinden und muß wachsen, aber wir müssen Wege finden unsere Gespräche dort in konkrete Taten zu verwandeln.

Als Widerstandsbewegungen begonnen haben über nationale Grenzen hinweg zu arbeiten und eine echte Bedrohung darzustellen, haben die Staaten ihre eigenen Strategien entwickelt, um mit ihnen fertig zu werden. Von Kooptation bis zur Unterdrückung.

Ich werde über drei Gefahren sprechen, welche Widerstandsbewegungen heute bedrohen: die problematische Beziehung zwischen den Massenbewegungen und den Massenmedien, der Gefahr der NGO-isierung des Widerstandes, und der Konfrontation der Widerstandsbewegungen mit zunehmend repressiven Staaten.

Das Zusammentreffen von Massenmedien und Massenbewegungen ist kompliziert.

Staaten haben gelernt, daß von Krisen angetriebene Medien es sich nicht leisten können zu lange beim selben Thema zu verweilen. Wie Wirtschaftsbetriebe einen Umsatz von Geld brauchen, brauchen die Medien einen Umsatz von Krisen. Ganze Länder werden zu Nachrichten von gestern. Sie hören auf zu existieren, und die Dunkelheit wird schwärzer, als noch zur Zeit befor das Licht kurz auf sie gefallen war. Wir sahen wie das mit Afghanistan geschah, als die Sowjets sich zurückzogen. Und nun, nachdem die Operation Enduring Freedom die CIA-Figur Hamid Karzai installiert hat, ist Afghanistan wieder seinen Warlords zurückgegeben worden.

Eine andere CIA-Figur, Iyad Allawi, ist im Irak installiert worden, und so ist für die Medien vielleicht die Zeit gekommen, sich auch von dort wieder zu entfernen.

Während Regierungen die Kunst eine Krise durchzuwarten perfektionieren, werden die Widerstandsbewegungen im Wirbel der Krisenproduktion vermehrt dazu verführt, Wege zu finden Krisen in einem einfach verdaubaren und zuschauerfreundlichen Format herzustellen.

Von jeder Bewegung welche ernstgenommen werden will, von jedem „Thema” wird erwartet, daß es seinen eigenen Heißluftballon starten läßt um sein Markenzeichen und seinen Zweck zu bewerben.

Deswegen sind Hungertote ein effektiveres Werbemittel für die Verarmung als Millionen unterernährter Menschen. Dämme sind nicht für Nachrichten gut, bis die von ihnen verursachten Verwüstungen gute Bilder liefern. (Und dann ist es zu spät).

Tagelang im ansteigenden Wasser eines Reservoirs zu stehen und dabei sein Haus und seine Habseligkeiten wegschwimmen zu sehen war einmal eine effektive Strategie beim Protest gegen große Dämme, aber das funktioniert nicht mehr. Die Medien langweilen sich dabei inzwischen zu tode. Also erwartet man von den hunderttausenden Menschen die von Dämmen vertrieben werden, daß sie sich neue Tricks einfallen lassen oder den Kampf aufgeben.

Bunte Demonstrationen und Wochenendmärsche sind ein kraftvoller Ausdruck, aber reichen nicht aus um einen Krieg zu verhindern. Kriege werden nur dann gestoppt werden, wenn SoldatInnen sich weigern zu kämpfen, wenn ArbeiterInnen sich weigern Waffen auf Schiffe und Flugzeuge zu laden, wenn die Menschen die wirtschaftlichen Außenposten des Imperiums, welche sich über die ganze Welt erstrecken, boykottieren.

Wenn wir Raum für zivilen Widerstand zurückerobern wollen, werden wir uns selbst von der Tyrannei der Kriesenberichterstattung und ihrer Furcht vor dem Weltlichen befreien müssen. Wir werden unsere Erfahrung, unsere Kreativität, und unsere Kunst dafür einsetzen die Methoden dieses Zustands zu hinterfragen; Methoden welche sicherstellen, daß „normal” bleibt was grausam, ungerecht, inakzeptabel ist. Wir müssen jene politischen Programme und Prozesse für alle sichtbar machen welche ganz gewöhnliche Dinge - Nahrung, Wasser, eine Unterkunft, Würde - zu einem so unerreichbaren Traum für gewöhnliche Menschen machen. Für eine erfolgreiche Prävention ist es notwendig zu verstehen, daß Krieg die Folge eines mangelhaften und ungerechten Friedens ist.

Was die Massenwiderstandsbewegungen betrifft ist es so, daß keine Menge an Berichterstattung durch die Medien eine große und starke Massenbeteiligung vor Ort ersetzen kann. Es gibt einfach keine Alternative zu altmodischer, aufwendiger, politischer Mobilisation.

Die Konzernglobalisierung hat die Distanz zwischen den Entscheidungsträgern und jenen welche die Konsequenz ihrer Entscheidungen zu ertragen haben vergrößert. Foren wie das Weltsozialforum ermöglichen es örtlichen Widerstandsbewegungen diese Distanz zu reduzieren und sich mit den Bewegungen aus den reichen Ländern zu verbinden. Diese Allianz ist wichtig und sehr fruchtvoll. Als zum Beispiel Indiens erster privater Damm, der Maheshwar-Damm gebaut wurde, hat eine Allianz zwischen Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), der deutschen Organisation Urgewald, der Erklärung von Bern und dem International Rivers Network in Berkeley es geschafft einige internationale Banken und Korporationen dazu zu bringen aus dem Projekt wieder auszusteigen. Das wäre ohne eine solide Widerstandsbewegung vor Ort unmöglich gewesen. Die Stimme dieser örtlichen Bewegung ist von UnterstützerInnen überall auf der Welt verstärkt worden, was die Investoren in eine peinliche Situation brachte und sie dazu zwang sich zurückzuziehen.

Eine vielzahl ähnler Allianzen welche spezifische Projekte und spezifische Konzerne als Ziel hätten, würden dabei helfen eine andere Welt möglich zu machen. Wir sollten mit den Konzernen beginnen welche mit Saddam Hussein Geschäfte machten und nun von der Zerstörung und Besatzung des Iraks profitieren.

Eine zweite Gefahr welche die Massenbewegungen heute bedroht ist die NGO-isierung des Widerstandes. Es wird einfach sein das was ich sagen werde als eine Anklage gegen alle NGOs darzustellen. Das wäre nicht richtig. Es gibt zwar schmutzige Gewässer in welchen Schein-NGOs schwimmen die dazu gegründet werden um Geld zu machen oder um Steuern auszuweichen (in Staaten wie Bihar werden sie als Mitgift gegeben), aber es gibt auch NGOs die welche wertvolle Arbeit machen. Aber es ist wichtig die NGOs in einem breiteren politischen Kontext zu betrachten.

In Indien begann der NGO-Boom zum Beispiel in den späten 80er und frühen 90er Jahren. Er fiel mit der Öffnung indischer Märkte für den Neoliberalismus zusammen. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt reduzierte der indische Staat, um den Erfordernissen der strukturellen Anpassung zu genügen, die Finanzierung der Entwicklung ländlicher Regionen und von Bereichen wie Landwirtschaft, Engergie, Transport und öffentliche Gesundheitsversorgung. Als der Staat sich von seiner traditionelle Rolle trennte kamen NGOs um in genau diesen Bereichen zu arbeiten. Der Unterschied ist natürlich, daß die Gelder welche sie zur Verfügung haben nur ein winziger Bruchteil der Reduktionen in den öffentlichen Ausgaben sind. Die meisten großen NGOs werden von Hilfs- und Entwicklungsagenturen finanziert und patronisiert, welche wiederum von westlichen Regierungen, der Weltbank, der UNO und einigen multinationalen Konzernen finanziert werden. Obwohl sie vielleicht nicht die gleichen Agenturen sind, sind sie sicherlich Teil der selben losen politischen Formation, welche das neoliberale Projekt überwacht und den Einschnitt in der öffentlichen Finanzierung erst gefordert hat.

Warum sollten diese Agenturen NGOs finanzieren? Könnte es einfach altmodischer missionarischer Eifer sein? Schuldgefühle? Es ist ein bisschen mehr als das. NGOs vermitteln den Eindruck, daß sie das Vakuum füllen, welches der Staat zurückgelassen hat. Und das machen sie auch, aber in einem substanziell nicht relevanten Ausmaß. Ihr echter Beitrag ist, daß sie politischen Ärger entschärfen und das auf was ein jeder ein Recht haben sollte als Hilfe oder im Namen der Wohltätigkeit austeilen.

Sie verändern die Psyche der Bevölkerung. Sie machen Menschen zu abhängigen Opfern und stumpfen die Ecken des politischen Widerstandes ab. NGOs bilden eine Art Puffer zwischen dem Sarkar und der Bevölkerung. Zwischen dem Imperium und seinen Untertanen. Sie sind zu den Vermittlern, den Erklärern und den Umsetzern geworden.

Auf lange Sicht gesehen, sind NGOs ihren Finanzierern verpflichtet, nicht den Menschen mit welchen sie zu tun haben. Sie sind was BotanikerInnen eine Indikatorspezies nennen würden. Es ist fast so, daß je größer die vom Neoliberalismus verursachte Zerstörung geworden ist, umso mehr NGOs auftauchen. Nichts illustriert dies passender als das Phänomen in den USA, welche sich dazu vorbereitet in einem Land einzufallen und gleichzeitig die NGOs bereit macht um in dieser Zerstörung wieder aufzuräumen.

Um sicherzustellen, daß ihre Finanzierung nicht gefährdet ist, und daß die Regierungen der Länder in welchen sie Arbeiten ihnen weiterhin erlauben werden ihre Funktion zu erfüllen, müssen NGOs ihre Arbeit in einem hohlen Rahmen darstellen, dem der politische und historische Hintergrund herausgerissen worden ist. Oder zumindest jener historische und politische Hintergrund, den man nicht gerne hört.

Apolitische (und daher in Wirklichkeit extrem politische) Notrufe aus armen Ländern und Kriegszonen lassen diese (dunkelhäutigen) Menschen dieser (dunkelhäutigen) Länder schließlich wie pathologische Opfer aussehen. Noch ein unterernährter Inder, noch eine verhungernde Äthiopierin, noch ein afghanisches Flüchtlingslager, noch eine verkrüppelte Sudanesin ... welche alle der Hilfe des weißen Mannes bedürfen. Sie verstärken ohne es zu wissen rasisstische Vorurteile und betonen die Errungenschaften, den Komfort und das Mitgefühl (die harte Liebe) der westlichen Gesellschaft. Sie sind die weltlichen Missionare der modernen Welt.

Und schließlich spielt das für NGOs vergfügbare Kapital die gleiche Rolle in alternativer Politik, wie das spekulative Kapital welches in armen Wirtschaftsräumen ein- und wieder ausfließt, in einem geringeren Maße zwar, aber auf heimtückischere Weise. Es beginnt die Themen zu bestimmen. Es macht Konfrontationen zu Verhandlungen. Es entpolitisiert den Widerstand. Es mischt sich in regionale Bewegungen ein welche traditionell selbstständig gearbeitet hatten. NGOs haben Gelder mit welchen Menschen angestellt werden können, die sonst AktivistInnen in Widerstandsbewegungen sein könnten, aber nun fühlen, daß sie etwas sofort wirksames, konstruktives und gutes machen können (und sich ihren Lebensunterhalt verdienen, während sie das tun). Echter politischer Widerstand bietet keine solchen Abkürzungen.

Die NGO-isierung der Politik droht den Widerstand in einen respektablen, vernünftigen, bezahlten 9 Uhr früh bis 5 Uhr Nachmittags-Job zu machen. Und dazu gibts noch einige Vergünstigungen. Echter Widerstand hat echte Konsequenzen. Und er wird nicht bezahlt.

Das bringt uns zur dritten Gefahr über welche ich heute sprechen will: die gefährliche Art der eigentlichen Konfrontation zwischen Widerstandsbewegungen und immer repressiveren Staaten. Zwischen der Zivilgesellschaft und den Agenten des Imperiums.

Wann immer ziviler Widerstand die geringsten Anzeichen gezeigt hat sich von symbolischen Aktionen zu irgendetwas auch nur im entferntesten Gefährlichen zu entwickeln wurde die Unterdrückung gnadenlos. Wir haben gesehen, was bei den Demonstrationen in Seattle, in Miami, in Göteburg und in Genua passiert ist.

In den Vereinigten Staaten hat man nun den USA Patriot Act, welcher für Regierungen überall auf der Welt zu einem Entwurf für Antiterrorgesetze geworden ist. Freiheiten werden eingeschränkt, und dies wird mit dem Schutz der Freiheit gerechtfertigt. Und wenn wir einmal unsere Freiheiten aufgegeben haben, wird es eine Revolution geben müssen um sie wieder zurückzugewinnen.

Einige Regierungen haben viel Erfahrung bei der Einschränkung von Freiheiten und sehen noch immer viele Möglichkeiten dabei. Die Regierung von Indien, schon lange ein Teilnehmer bei diesem Spiel, wirft Licht auf den Pfad.

Über die Jahre hat die indische Regierung eine Vielzahl von Gesetzen erlassen welche es ihr erlauben fast jeden als terroristisch, aufständisch oder militant zu kennzeichnen. Bei uns gibt es das Militärische Sonderermächtigungsgesetz, das Gesetz für Öffentliche Sicherheit, das Gesetz für Sicherheit in besonderen Gebieten, das Gangster-Gesetz, den Terrorist and Disruptive Areas Act (den es formal zwar nicht mehr gibt, aber unter welchem noch immer Menschen vor Gericht stehen) und POTA (Gesetz zur Verhinderung von Terrorismus), was ein Breitbandantibiotikum gegen die Krankheit des Dissens ist.

Es werden noch weitere Schritte unternommen, wie Gerichtsurteile, welche darauf hinauslaufen die Redefreiheit einzuschränken, Regierungsangestellten das Recht zu streiken nehmen, und Menschen das Recht auf einen Lebensunterhalt nehmen. Gerichte haben begonnen unsere Lebenweise in Indien zu bestimmen. Und die Gerichte zu kritisieren ist strafbar.

Die Zahl jener Menschen welche im letzten Jahrzehnt von Polizei- und Sicherheitskräften geötet worden ist muß in Zehntausenden angegeben werden. Im Staat Andhra Pradesh (dem Vorzeigemodell für Konzernglobalisierung in Indien) werden pro Jahr im Durchschnitt etwa 200 „ExtremistInnen” bei etwas das „Zusammenstöße” genannt wird getötet. Die Polizei in Bombay gibt damit an, wieviele „Gangster” sie in „Shoot Outs” erschossen hat. In Kashmir, wo ein Zustand herrscht der eine Art von Krieg darstellt, wurden seit 1989 ungefähr 80.000 Menschen getötet. Tausende sind einfach „verschwunden”. In den nordöstlichen Provinzen ist die Situation ähnlich.

In den letzten Jahren hat die indische Polizei häufig Feuer auf unbewaffnete Menschen eröffnet, meistens Daliten und Adivasis. Die bevorzugte Methode ist es sie umzubringen und sie dann TerroristInnen zu nennen. Indien steht hier aber nicht alleine da. Wir haben gesehen wie ähnliches in Ländern wie Bolivien, Chile und Südafrika passiert ist. In der Ära des Neoliberalismus ist Armut ein Verbrechen und Widerstand gegen sie wird vermehrt als Terrorismus bezeichnet.

In Indien wird POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) auch oft Production of Terrorism Act genannt. Es ist ein vielseitig einsetzbares, für alles verwendbares Gesetz, das genausogut gegen ein Mitglied Al-Kaidas wie gegen einen verärgerten Buschauffeur angewendet werden kann. Wie bei allen Antiterrorgesetzen ist die Genialität hinter POTA, daß es sein kann, was auch immer die Regierung gerade braucht. Nach dem Pogrom in Gujarat vom Jahr 2002, in welchem etwa 2.000 MuslimInnen brutal von Hindumobs getötet worden sind und 150.000 von ihren Häusern vertrieben wurden, sind 287 Menschen unter POTA angeklagt worden. Von diesen sind 286 MuslimInnen und einer ein Sikh.

POTA läßt unter Polizeigewahrsam erhaltene Geständnisse als Beweismittel vor Gericht zu. Das führt dazu, daß Folter die Nachforschungen ersetzt. Das South Asia Human Rights Documentation Center berichtet, daß es in Indien die meisten Folterungen und Todesfälle während der Inhaftierung weltweit gibt. Regierungsdaten zeigen, daß es allein 2002 1.307 Todesfälle in Polizeigewahrsam gegeben hat.

Vor einigen Monaten war ich Mitglied eines Volkstribunals welches sich mit POTA befasste. Während einer Dauer von zwei Tagen hörten wir uns entsetzliche Berichte darüber an, was in unserer wundervollen Demokratie vor sich geht. Es gibt alles - von Leuten welche dazu gezwungen werden Urin zu trinken, denen das Gewand vom Leib gerissen wird, die gedemütigt werden, denen elektrische Schocks gegeben werden, die mit Zigaretten verbrannt werden, denen Eisenstäbe in den After geschoben werden, die zu Tode geschlagen und getreten werden. Die neue Regierung hat versprochen POTA aufzuheben. Ich wäre überascht wenn das passiert, bevor eine neue Gesetzgebung unter einem anderen Namen in Kraft getreten ist. Wenn es nicht POTA ist, dann wird es MOTA sein, oder etwas ähnliches.

Wenn jeder Weg des gewaltfreien Widerstandes gesperrt wird und jeder der gegen die Verletzung von Menschenrechten protestiert Terrorist genannt wird, sollten wir dann wirklich überrascht sein, wenn große Teile des Landes von jenen überrannt werden, welche an einen bewaffneten Kampf glauben und mehr oder weniger außerhalb der Kontrolle des Staates stehen: in Kashmir, in den nordöstlichen Provinzen, in großen Teilen von Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand und Andhra Pradesh. Die einfachen Menschen in diesen Regionen sind zwischen der Gewalt der Militanten und der des des Staates gefangen.

Die Armee schätzt, daß in Kashmir zu jeder Zeit zwischen 3.000 und 4.000 Militante operieren. Um sie zu kontrollieren setzt der indische Staat dort etwa 500.000 SoldatInnen ein. Es sind offensichtlich nicht nur die Militanten welche die Armee kontrollieren will, sonderen eine ganze Bevölkerung von gedemütigten unglücklichen Menschen welche die indische Armee als eine Besatzungsmacht betrachten.

Das Militärische Sonderermächtigungsgesetz erlaubt es nicht nur Offizieren sondern auch niedrigrangigerem Personal der Armee Gewalt gegen jede Person anzuwenden, und sie auch zu töten, wenn sie verdächtigt wird, die öffentliche Ordnung zu stören. Es wurde 1958 zunächst für einige Gebiete in Manipur erlassen. Heute wird es beinahe im ganzen Nordosten und in Kaschmir angewandt. Die Berichte von Folterungen, Verschwundenen, Todesfällen während der Gefangenschaft, Vergewaltigungen und Massenhinrichtungen durch Sicherheitskräfte ist genug um einem den Magen umzudrehen.

In Andhra Pradesh, in einem der bedeutendsten Staaten Indiens, ist die die marxistisch-leninistische Volkskriegsgruppe seit Jahren an einem gewalttätigen bewaffneten Konflikt beteiligt und war das Hauptziel bei vielen vorgetäuschten „Zusammenstößen” der Polizei Andhra Pradeshs. Sie hielten am 28. Juli 2004 in der Stadt Warangal ihr erstes öffentliches Treffen seit Jahren.

Hunderttausende Menschen kamen. Unter POTA gelten diese nun alle als TerroristInnen. Wird man sie alle in einer indischen Version von Guntanamo Bay einsperren?

Der ganze Nordosten und das Kaschmirtal stehen vor einem Aufruhr. Was wird der Staat mit diesen millionen Menschen machen?

Es gibt heute keine Diskussion auf der Welt welche wichtiger ist, als die Debatte über die Strategien des Widerstandes. Und die Wahl der Strategie ist nicht ganz in den Händen der Bevölkerung. Sie liegt auch in den Händen des Sarkars.

Denn wenn die USA den Irak in jener Art überfällt und besetzt wie sie es gemacht hat, nämlich mit überwältigender militärischer Übermacht, kann man vom Widerstand dann erwarten, daß er ein gewöhnlicher militärischer sein wird? (Natürlich würde er auch terroristisch genannt werden, wenn er ein gewöhnlicher wäre.) Auf eine seltsame Art macht das Arsenal von Waffen und konkurrenzloser Luftwaffe und Feuerkraft den Terror zur unausweichlichen Antwort. Was den Menschen an Geld und Macht fählt, werden sie durch Verborgenheit und Strategie wettzumachen versuchen.

Wenn die Staaten in diesen unruhigen Zeiten, die einem zur Verzweiflung bringend können, nicht alles tun um die gewaltfreien Widerstandsbewegungen anzuerkennen, dann privilegieren sie automatisch jene welche sich der Gewalt zuwenden. Keine Verurteilung des Terrorismus durch einen Staat ist glaubwürdig, wenn dieser nicht vorzeigen kann, daß er offen für Veränderungen durch gewaltfreien Dissens ist.

Aber anstelle dessen werden gewaltfreie Widerstandsbewegungen zerschlagen. Jede Art von politischer Massen-mobilisierung oder -Organisation wird bestochen, gebrochen oder einfach ignoriert.

Inzwischen widmen die Staaten, die Konzernmedien, und vergessen wir nicht die Filmindustrie, ihre Zeit, ihre Aufmerksamkeit, ihre Technologie, ihre Forschung und ihre Bewunderung dem Krieg und dem Terrorismus. Die Gewalt ist vergöttlicht worden.

Die Botschaft die daraus hervorgeht ist beunruhigend und gefährlich: Wenn du versuchen willst einem Ärger der Bevölkerung Ausdruck zu verleihen, ist Gewalt effektiver als Gewaltfreiheit.

Während die Kluft die Arm und Reich trennt größer wird, während die Notwendigkeit immer akuter wird die Ressourcen der Welt zuzuweisen und zu kontrollieren um die große kapitalistische Maschine zu füttern, wird der Aufruhr sich verstärken.

Für jene von uns welche auf der falschen Seite des Imperiums leben, wird die Demütigung unerträglich.

Jedes irakische Kind welches von den Vereinigten Staaten getötet worden ist war unser Kind. Jeder Gefangende der in Abu Ghraib gefoltert worden ist war unser Kamerad. Jeder ihrer Schreie war unserer. Wenn sie gedemütigt werden, so sind es wir die gedemütigt werden. Die US SoldatInnen welche im Irak kämpfen - zum Großteil Freiwillige aus einer Konskription in Kleinstädten und armen Stadtteilen - sind genauso Opfer dieses schrecklichen Vorgangs wie die IrakerInnen, einem Vorgehen das von ihnen fordert für einen Sieg zu sterben, der niemals ihrer sein wird.

Die Mandarine der Konzernwelt, die CEOs, die Bankiers, die PolitikerInnen, die RichterInnnen und Generäle sehen von oben auf uns herab und schütteln ernst ihre Häupter. „Es gibt keine Alternative”, sagen sie. Und lassen wir die Hunde des Kriegs von den Ketten.

Dann kommt aus den Ruinen Afghanistans, den Schutthaufen des Iraks und Tschetscheniens, von den Straßen des besetzten Palästinas, aus den Bergen Kaschmirs, von den Hügeln und Prärien Kolumbiens und aus den Wäldern Andhra Pradehs und Assms die kalte Antwort: „Es gibt keine Alternative, außer dem Terror”. Terrorismus. Bewaffneter Kampf. Aufstand. Nenne es wie du willst.

Terrorismus ist bösartig, ekelhaft und entmenschlicht sowohl diejenigen die ihn ausüben wie auch seine Opfer. Aber genauso tut es der Krieg. Man könnte sagen, daß der Terrorismus die Privatisierung des Krieges ist. TerroristInnen sind die Freihändler des Krieges. Es sind Leute die nicht glauben, daß der Staat ein Monopol auf die legitime Anwendung von Gewalt hat.

Die menschliche Gesellschaft steuert einen furchtbaren Ort an.

Natürlich gibt es eine Alternative zum Terrorismus. Sie wird Gerechtigkeit genannt.

Es wird Zeit zu erkennen, daß keine noch so große Zahl nuklearer Waffen oder Daisy Cutters, weder eine Full-spectrum Dominance noch falsche Regierungsräte oder Loya Jirgas den Frieden auf Kosten der Gerechtigkeit kaufen können.

Das Verlangen nach Hegemonie und Übermacht von manchen wird dazu führen, daß andere sich mit noch stärker nach Würde und Gerechtigkeit sehnen.

Welche Form der Kampf haben wird, ober er wunderschön oder blutdürstig sein wird, hängt von uns ab.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Surprised? This is the next war planned by the Bush administration. In early 2002 when the war in Iraq was already decided, the neo-conservatives in Washington were saying "Wimps go to Baghdad, REAL MEN GO TO TEHRAN!"..

US debates military strikes on `nuclear Iran`
By Guy Dinmore in Washington

Published: September 16 2004

The Bush administration`s warnings that it will not "tolerate" a nuclear-armed Iran have opened up a lively policy debate in Washington over the merits of military strikes against the Islamic republic`s nuclear programme.

Analysts close to the administration say military options are under consideration, but have not reached a level of seriousness that indicate the US is preparing actual action.

When asked, senior officials repeat that President George W. Bush is removing no option from the table - but that he believes the issue can be solved by diplomatic means.

Diplomacy on Wednesday appeared stalled.

The US and its European allies on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency continued to wrangle over the wording of a resolution on Iran which insists it has no intention of using its advanced civilian programme to make a bomb.

Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank, says that with "enough intelligence and spadework", the US could "do a good job" of slowing Iran`s programme for a while.

But, he cautions, the Bush administration would need a "game plan" for the aftermath.

That long-term approach is lacking, analysts say, and has floundered in the debate over "regime change".

Asked whether Israel would take military action if the US dithered, Mr Schmitt replied: "Absolutely. No government in Israel will let this pass ultimately."

Tom Donnelly, an analyst with PNAC and the American Enterprise Institute, says that while inflicting military damage is possible, the consequences rule out this option.

If the US started down the military road, it would have to consider going the whole way to invasion and occupation.

"We have to start thinking in terms of a post-nuclear Iran," he said, describing the Europeans as "hopeless" on Iran, and India and China boosting their energy relations with the clerical regime.

Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Pol icy Education Center, says the US and its allies are in a state of denial, that it is too late to stop Iran from getting the bomb. It already has the capacity, he says.

Neither of the US and European options "to bomb or bribe Iran" would succeed and both could make it worse.

Mr Sokolski describes as "highly irresponsible" the idea that the US can let Israel do the job.

The short-term benefits of air strikes would have to be weighed against the costs of a blow to US efforts to foster more moderate Islamic rule in Iran and the Middle East.

The military option is laid out in detail by Globalsecurity.org, a defence think-tank.

"The window of opportunity for disarming strikes against Iran will close in 2005," it warns, as key plants come on stream next year. It says Iran has two dozen suspected nuclear sites.

But it adds that the absence of significant numbers of US stealth aircraft, early warning aircraft and other assets in the region indicate that the US is not actively considering air strike options at the moment.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Mercenaries in Afghan Case Get 8 to 10 Years in Prison
By CARLOTTA GALL

New York Times

September 16, 2004

KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 15 - Three Americans were sentenced here on Wednesday to 8 to 10 years in prison for running a private jail and torturing prisoners, after a panel of three Afghan judges rejected their claim that they were working for a Pentagon counterterrorist group led by Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.

Jonathan K. Idema, 48, a former member of the Special Forces, and Brent Bennett, 28, an Army-trained forward air controller, were sentenced to 10 years, and Edward Caraballo, 42, a journalist filming a documentary about them, was given 8 years.

Four Afghans working for the men were given sentences of one to five years. The Americans stood still as they heard the sentences relayed by an interpreter. Behind them, the youngest defendant, a 15-year-old Afghan translator, began to cry.

The Americans immediately said that they had had been abandoned by their American masters because they had become a political liability. "This can only have been staged by the U.S. government - we were an embarrassment," said Mr. Caraballo, an award-winning cameraman who says he was filming Mr. Idema`s counterterrorist operations.

General Boykin was the subject of a Pentagon investigation that in August determined that he had violated military regulations by giving speeches while in uniform in which he cast the Bush administration`s war on terrorism as a battle between Christianity and Islam and claimed that Muslims worship an idol and not a "real God." The speeches came to light the previous October.

Lawyers for the Americans had tried to introduce a videotape as evidence that Mr. Idema had a relationship with counterterrorism officials in the military, and particularly with General Boykin`s office. But the lead judge, Abdul Baset Bakhtiari, apparently intent on wrapping up the trial before the end of the day, cut short their defense and barely watched the videotape.

The taped conversations, handed out to journalists by defense lawyers after the trial, could have provided evidence that the men were working for some special unit with the knowledge and cooperation of people in the Pentagon. But there was no immediate way to verify the authenticity of the tapes.

American Embassy officials have said since the arrests on July 5 that as far as they knew neither Mr. Idema nor anyone in his group was working for a government agency. The military has issued statements saying Mr. Idema was impersonating government or military officials and did not represent either.

Yet the videos, recorded by Mr. Caraballo in Kabul in the months after their arrival in April of this year, seem to show Mr. Idema talking on two occasions to people in General Boykin`s office. In one conversation Mr. Idema is heard telling Jorge Shim, an aide to General Boykin, that he is close to rounding up a whole cell of terrorists.

The aide responds: "I told General Boykin that you called. I gave him the information and to the D.I.A.," apparently referring to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Mr. Idema says, "There are more bombs and more bombers, and we are hitting them in five hours."

The aide replies, "Five hours? Jack, I`m going to have someone from the D.I.A. contact you on your cell number, so give me a few minutes."

In another conversation, which the defense represented as having occurred days before the men were arrested by Afghan authorities, Mr. Idema is clearly asking for some help. General Boykin`s aides explain that they had been trying to separate the general from Mr. Idema`s activities to avoid any attention from the news media.

Mr. Idema says, "Someone`s got to do something within 12 hours or I`m going to e-mail this [expletive] thing to Dan Rather. Do you think I would rot in prison if there`s a problem?"

Then a man who says he is "George`s supervisor" comes on the line and says, "I don`t know what happened. I don`t know how this happened." The speaker refers to "J2," which Mr. Idema said in court was an umbrella group of top officers in military intelligence, as he explains that people were trying to put Mr. Idema in touch with J2 intelligence officials so he could work with them.

The speaker says, "We passed all your information to the J2 staff here and to the D.I.A., and we were trying to protect our boss from getting associated with it because he does not need any other scrutiny right now by the press. So we are trying to put a firewall between your efforts and him because we did not want to connect anything there and there is no need to do that."

In Washington, a Defense Department official acknowledged that Mr. Idema had called several Pentagon officials, including General Boykin`s assistant, Mr. Shim, seeking to pass along intelligence information. That information would have been sent through the appropriate intelligence channels for review, just like any other unsolicited tip.

The official said, however, that Mr. Idema was not employed by the Pentagon, and his activities had not been directed or encouraged by General Boykin or any other defense official.

The Pentagon official did not dispute the veracity of the tape-recorded conversations that Mr. Idema produced, but said he and other defense officials could not immediately confirm that the conversations had actually taken place or the assertion in one of the recordings that General Boykin`s aides were trying to dissociate their boss from Mr. Idema.

Other evidence presented by the defense but not shown to the court included 70 pages of documents, mostly faxes and correspondence from Mr. Idema to Pentagon, C.I.A. and F.B.I. officials, providing reports on suspected terrorist groups.

Two documents show some return correspondence, but nothing that directly ties them to the Pentagon during the men`s time in Afghanistan.

Judge Bakhtiari ruled that the men had failed to provide documentary evidence of authorization from Washington or the Afghan government for their work.

He seemed to have trouble understanding the taped telephone conversations, which were indeed hard to follow and not fully translated. Eventually, he cut short the defense, saying that the videos were inconclusive and that he needed more concrete, documentary evidence.

Mr. Idema`s lawyer, John Edwards Tiffany, and Robert Fogelnest, who is representing Mr. Caraballo, said the three men had been abandoned by the United States and left to their fates in an Afghan court to avoid the far greater publicity of an American trial.

Mr. Fogelnest asked: "Is this a secret that the Americans have secret ops? How many other Jacks do they have floating around?" He used Mr. Idema`s preferred first name.

The case will automatically go to an appeals court within two weeks, Judge Bakhtiari said, and if the appeals judges wish, they will call the defendants back to court. After that, the defendants may appeal the case to the Afghan supreme court. Mr. Fogelnest said they would appeal.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Far graver than Vietnam

Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 16, 2004

The Guardian
`Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But, according to the US military`s leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush`s war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn`t found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it`s worse, he`s lost on that front. That he`s going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It`s lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we`re on, we`re achieving Bin Laden`s ends."

Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We`re conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It`s so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."

Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true. There`s no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan."

W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College`s strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: "I don`t think that you can kill the insurgency". According to Terrill, the anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.

"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they`re all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view."

After the killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, the marines besieged the city for three weeks in April - the watershed event for the insurgency. "I think the president ordered the attack on Fallujah," said General Hoare. "I asked a three-star marine general who gave the order to go to Fallujah and he wouldn`t tell me. I came to the conclusion that the order came directly from the White House." Then, just as suddenly, the order was rescinded, and Islamist radicals gained control, using the city as a base.

"If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by a non-Islamic power it becomes a religious requirement to resist that occupation," Terrill explained. "Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators." He describes the religious imagery common now in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle: "There`s talk of angels and the Prophet Mohammed coming down from heaven to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and emanating wonderful scents."

"I see no exit," said Record. "We`ve been down that road before. It`s called Vietnamisation. The idea that we`re going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can`t defeat stretches the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq."

General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn`t as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we`re in a region far more volatile, and we`re in much worse shape with our allies."

Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the no-go areas "could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign". Thus, an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. "If we leave and there`s no civil war, that`s a victory."

General Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That`s the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs are all there."

He compares any such planned attack to the late Syrian dictator Hafez al-Asad`s razing of the rebel city of Hama. "You could flatten it," said Hoare. "US military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there would be inconclusive results with respect to the bad guys, their leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the middle. I hate that phrase collateral damage. And they talked about dancing in the street, a beacon for democracy."

General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. "I`ve never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There`s a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."

· Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is Washington bureau chief of salon.com

sidney_blumenthal@ yahoo.com
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Israel, not Iran, is wild card in explosive Middle East pack

David Hirst in Beirut
Thursday September 16, 2004

The Guardian
When George Bush first identified the two Middle East members of his "axis of evil", Iran clearly ranked as a far more formidable adversary than Saddam Hussein`s Iraq.

But President Bush went after the easier target instead. So "did we invade the wrong country?" asks a leading commentator, Charles Krauthammer, speaking for many neo-conservative hawks as the US refocuses on Iran.

From their standpoint, it must surely look as if they did. For the neo-cons, overthrowing Saddam was nothing if not regional in purpose, the opening phase of a grand design to "transform" the entire Middle East.

But such are the region`s cross-border dynamics that success was never going to be assured in one country unless it embraced others too.

Yet it is hardly success in Iraq that accounts for the increasingly urgent concerns about Iran; it is more likely the spectre of catastrophic failure. For if the Islamic Republic was always the most dangerous of "rogue states", it is now more dangerous than it was at the outset of the Iraq adventure. It simply has to be subdued.

"If nothing is done", Mr Krauthammer argues, "a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the `Great Satan` will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or pre-emptive strike. Both of which are far more likely to succeed with 146,000 American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away in Iraq."

Such talk does not seem to frighten the mullahs. They do worry about the strategic encirclement which the US has thrown around them. Yet, paradoxically, they are emboldened too. For they think that if they are more vulnerable, so - over-extended and floundering - is their adversary.

They are saying it loud and clear: we have strategic assets to match America`s, and the cost of any US or Israeli attempt to exploit their military advantages against us will be great and region-wide.

Iran claims it is not developing nuclear weapons. But much of its behaviour, at least that of the once again dominant, hardline clerical establishment, indicates a deliberate attempt to cloak the claim in ambiguity, nourishing the convictions of all those who believe that Iran is developing such weapons. Certainly, at least, it wants to create the impression that it is acquiring the kind of firepower that only weapons of mass destruction can supply.

If the Islamic Republic does not actually have the unconventional means, not yet at least, to lend substance to its militant rhetoric, it does have conventional means that have long been an intrinsic, largely surreptitious, part of its whole "revolutionary" modus operandi.

In fact, through Iraq, the removal of its arch-enemy Saddam and the emancipation and new aspirations of the long-suppressed Shia majority, it has them in new and providential abundance. "Some military commanders in Iran", said the defence minister, Ali Shamkani, "are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly. We too are present from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan, in the Gulf, and we can be in Iraq, where US forces won`t be an element of strength, but our hostage."

No wonder that, for the new Iraqi government, the Muqtada al-Sadr rebellion was as much about Iran as it was about Mr Sadr.

And then there is always Lebanon and Hizbullah, that everlasting flashpoint in reserve. Quiescent of late, Hizbullah is ever ready to re-enter the jihadist arena, drawing on the arsenal of rockets with which, according to Israel, Iran has been systematically supplying it.

"This", says the veteran Israeli military analyst Zeev Schiff, "is an Iran-Syria-Hizbullah array", and its use, almost certain in the event of an American or Israeli strike on Iran, could escalate into "all-out war".

It is clear that the mullahs do not want a full-scale showdown; in parading their assets they seek to deter, rather than provoke. In fact they have always wanted better relations with the US, provided they get something in return, and that they, not their reformist rivals, control the process. If anything, the urgency now lies on the other side; hence the urgings of pundits like Mr Krauthammer to "strike before Iran`s nukes get hot".

But perhaps the real wild card lies less in the Iranian "rogue state" than it does in what amounts to the Israeli one. Israel has repeatedly warned that it may sooner or later take direct action to stop an Iranian nuclear bomb "going critical".

As Amos Perlmutter, Michael Handel and Uri Bar-Joseph recount in their book Two Minutes over Baghdad, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was once part of a three-man inner circle that kept even the very sympathetic administration of President Ronald Reagan completely in the dark as they planned and carried out the daring 1981 airstrike on Iraq`s Osirak nuclear plant.

That exploit had little visible fallout. But a repeat performance against Iran today would be universally perceived as American in spirit, even if exclusively Israeli in execution, and the whole Middle Eastern mess which America came to Iraq to clean up would instantly cross a new threshold in scale, virulence and unpredictability.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Kerry`s New Movie
Going Upriver rebuts the Swift Boat vets, but it will also bring them back.
By Chris Suellentrop
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004, at 11:48 PM PT

TORONTO—We`re at the point in the campaign when we`re supposed to wring our hands over the decline of politics, mourn the lack of coverage of "the issues," and decry the media`s focus on personality and the horse race. But my guess is we`re about to get mired in the muck of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth all over again. Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry, a new documentary by George Butler, hits theaters in the United States on Oct. 1. The film, which had its world premiere here Tuesday evening, is sure to land the Swifties in the news again. For one, the movie is based on Tour of Duty, the Douglas Brinkley hagiography that the Swift Boat vets say incited them to action in the first place.

More important, Going Upriver seems designed to rebut, one by one, the three campaign ads put out by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: one questioning Kerry`s heroism during the war, one criticizing his antiwar testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and one condemning his decision to throw his ribbons over a fence in front of the Capitol during an antiwar demonstration. Butler re-edited his film in response to the Swift Boat ads, and he said after the premiere that the movie wasn`t finished until Tuesday morning. On the matter of Kerry`s conduct during the war itself, Butler has Kerry`s "band of brothers" describe his actions on "Silver Star day," and Jim Rassman tells the story of how Kerry saved his life and won the Bronze Star in the process. In addition, numerous speakers talk about how dangerous commanding a Swift Boat was, and how deadly.

On Kerry`s Senate testimony, Butler shows the statements made by veterans at the "Winter Soldier" hearings in Detroit, where veterans confessed to committing atrocities during the war. Some of those claims have been disputed, but the Winter Soldier hearings were the basis for Kerry`s statements about atrocities before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Butler shows veterans talking about shooting children and gang raping a woman in public. In the film, Kerry protests that he didn`t personally see anyone chop off someone`s head, but he believes that the U.S. government`s policies in Vietnam—such as burning the homes of noncombatants, or creating "free-fire zones" in which all Vietnamese were deemed to be the enemy—were in violation of the laws of war.

As for Kerry`s tossing of his ribbons, Butler spends a long section of the film showing veterans angrily and defiantly hurling their medals toward the Capitol. The sources interviewed for Going Upriver discuss how "painful" the protest was, how it was "terribly difficult," "extremely hard," etc. Perhaps to dismiss the charge that Kerry`s protest was somehow phony because he tossed his ribbons instead of his medals, a speaker points out that some veterans threw their medals, others threw their ribbons, and others tossed their citations or even the boxes that their medals came in. Kerry was almost the last man to stand before the microphone during the protest, and according to Tom Oliphant, he "kind of lobbed" his contribution over the fence and walked away.

During this scene, Butler includes a photograph of Kerry shoving his ribbons through the fence that he left out of the film`s companion book. The next shot is the one of a crumpled Kerry, being consoled by Julia Thorne. The demonstration was designed to illustrate that "the sacrifices that we went through were for nothing," says Bobby Muller, one of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. "That`s the bitter pill, and I think that`s the harder pill to take, frankly," than coming back and saying their service was necessary for the continuation of freedom and the American way. Throughout the film, Muller is Kerry`s most effective advocate, the man who most persuasively argues that what Kerry did when he returned from the war was not just defensible but morally correct.

Swift Boat Vet obsessives will note that there`s nothing about the (unfair) criticism of Kerry`s Purple Hearts or the fact that Kerry was likely in Cambodia in January or February instead of the previous Christmas. More important than those details, however, are Butler`s other omissions. For example, in Tour of Duty Brinkley quotes some of Kerry`s crewmates talking about their initial anger at Kerry when they learned he was leading antiwar demonstrations. Though they later came to understand his decision—and believe that he was right—at first they felt betrayed. Butler, however, shows only David Alston, who says he was glad to see Kerry speak out. On the other hand, Going Upriver is honest about something the Kerry campaign isn`t: The film bothers to point out that when Kerry volunteered for Swift boat duty, he wasn`t asking for one of the war`s most dangerous jobs. At the time, the boats were engaged in coastal patrols, checking the papers of commercial fisherman.

One more Swift Boat-related bit of news from the premiere: During the Q&A with Butler after the film was over, a member of the audience asked him why he didn`t include anything about Christmas in Cambodia. Butler explained that it`s very difficult to know whether Kerry was in Cambodia, then changed the subject to the lack of credibility of John O`Neill, the co-author of Unfit for Command. (O`Neill appears in Going Upriver when he is dredged up by Richard Nixon and Charles Colson to be a public-relations counterweight to Kerry and the VVAW.) O`Neill, Butler pointed out, denied ever being in Cambodia despite telling Nixon otherwise. But in the course of telling the story, Butler seemed to imply that he, or someone on his crew, leaked the tape of O`Neill`s comment to the news media. "We found a Nixon White House tape," Butler began, before stopping himself. "Or, there is in existence a White House tape ..."
Chris Suellentrop is Slate`s deputy Washington bureau chief. You can e-mail him at [e-mail].

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2106690/

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/190939_means16.html

Kerry a sitting duck for Cheney

Thursday, September 16, 2004

By MARIANNE MEANS
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

WASHINGTON -- When a normally tactful former secretary of state chides a sitting vice president for irresponsibly politicizing national security issues, you know the veep has shredded the already low basic standards of campaign decency.

Madeleine Albright declared in a television interview Sunday that she`d never seen national security "as politicized as this has been since Joe McCarthy" in the red-baiting 1950s.

She was talking about Dick Cheney`s jibe that if Sen. John Kerry is elected "the danger is that we`ll get hit again and we`ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." The message for voters was as unthinkable as it was unmistakable: Vote Republican or die.

Cheney`s words were no accident. They were a natural extension of his increasingly harsh attacks on Kerry for what Cheney describes as indecisiveness and weakness in foreign policy.

But Albright`s critique revived unpleasant memories of the long-ago crusade of Sen. Joe McCarthy, R-Wis., who was notorious for imputing unpatriotic motives to anyone with anything other than a right-wing Republican viewpoint.

That was a particularly nasty time, at the height of the Cold War. But there have been other famous scare tactics, most notably a television commercial aired by President Johnson`s 1964 campaign that featured a little girl plucking daisy petals in a countdown that morphed into an atomic blast. The ad, which implied that Sen. Barry Goldwater -- the Republican nominee -- would blow up the world, was so unfair that the Johnson campaign ran it only once. But once was all that was needed. Everybody got the message, and Johnson was elected in a landslide.

After Kerry supporters complained last week, Cheney did back off a smidgen, saying he wanted to "clean up" the impression he had left. He suggested that he merely meant President Bush would do a better job of fighting terrorists than Kerry.

But much like the LBJ nuclear ad, what most voters will remember is what Cheney said originally.

He is still indulging in calculated, unfounded demagoguery. And he is still claiming connections between Iraq and al-Qaida that the 9/11 commission concluded do not exist. His aim is to wrap the needless war in Iraq into the overall fight against terror.

If Bush is doing such a swell job fighting terrorists, how come Iraq is a mess? Attacks on coalition forces are increasing, American deaths are over 1,000 and U.S. forces have ceded uncontrolled zones to guerrillas.

How come there were 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces in Iraq in August, the worst monthly average since Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in May 2003 to proclaim the fighting over?

How come we are still at heightened alert despite the fact that the supposedly vulnerable, overpoliced presidential conventions are behind us? How come Osama bin Laden has not been found? How come Bush has squandered our international credibility and reputation by going it virtually alone in Iraq?

Cheney and Bush are using scare tactics to distract voters from the reality of a bungled war with a sticker-shock price tag, as well as an inability to deal with urgent threats from North Korea and Iran.

Scare tactics work. Recent polls indicate that a clear majority of voters believe that Bush will make the country safer than would Kerry.

But part of the reason such tactics work is that Kerry has not countered with his own tough positions on handling the war on terror. He has been all over the lot on Bush`s mistakes. But his own thinking is muddled at best.

He wastes too much time calling for more international support, a mushy pitch with little punch. While Cheney and Bush were busily bashing him as weak on defense, Kerry was talking about health care and gun control. His campaign had decided that the economy is more important than terrorism, but his strategists should look at the polls. The voters are swinging the other way, giving terrorism the highest priority.

Only lately has Kerry begun to carry the war to Bush`s back yard, where it belongs. Instead of being defensive about his vote to authorize a war he believed would be waged differently, Kerry should point out that it is Bush who is mishandling the postwar conflict and who drove allies away. It is Bush who has no exit strategy. It is Bush who misunderstood the internal dynamics of Iraq and who believed, as Cheney did, that we would be greeted as "liberators." Instead we are bogged down in hostile territory from which we cannot flee.

The record shows that Bush has not made us safer. As Kerry charges, "The situation in Iraq is worse, not better." Now it is up to Kerry to make Cheney eat his hateful words.

Marianne Means is a Washington, D.C., columnist with Hearst Newspapers. Copyright 2004 Hearst Newspapers. She can be reached at 202-263-6400 or [e-mail]

© 1998-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
Informed Comment
[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Thoughts on the Middle East, History,and Religion
[/TABLE][Table align=left]

[/TABLE]

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Aladdin`s Genie Run over by Humvee

The US military announced that a marine had been killed in Anbar province on Tuesday.

Wire services report that on Wednesday in Iraq

*In Ramadi, running gun battles broke out between local Sunni nationalists and US Marines. Guerrillas set off a bomb, killing 1 person. Altogether the fighting killed 13 and wounded 17.

*In Baquba, northeast of Baghdad, guerrillas detonated a roadside bomb, killing 4 policemen and one civilian.

*In Samarra, due north of the capital, Sunni nationalists fired a rocket-propelled grenade at US and Iraqi troops who were guarding a city council building. The action imperilled that agreement reached between the US and local clan elders, which had allowed US troops back into the city.

*In Suwayra, to the south of the capital, guerrillas detonated a car bomb at the base of the Iraqi National Guard, killing two persons and wounding 10.

*Near the southern Shiite shrine city of Karbala, an unknown assailant assassinated Labib Mohammadi, an employee of Iran`s pilgrimage commission in Iraq.

Kim Housego of AP argues that the Iraqi nationalist guerrillas fighting the US presence are becoming more sophisticated and interlinked over time.

Stephen Farrell`s piece, reprinted in an Australian paper, contains a clear-eyed summary of the security situation in Iraq. He notes, " In the first two weeks of September alone, 291 Iraqi civilians have been killed. The number of foreigners taken hostage last month soared to 31. The average number of attacks on US soldiers reached 87 a day."

But the saddest thing in his article comes at the end, where he tells us about the Iraqis` loss of faith even in the 1,001 Nights:


". . . this week Iraqis sat down to watch a wicked television satire updating the legend of the genie and the lamp. Summoned to a darkened flat to grant his customary wishes, the hapless blue-bearded genie is asked to repair the electricity supply, but can only attach the wires to the neighbours` generator, which promptly breaks down.

Beseeched to improve the nation`s security, he disappears only to reappear bruised and battered, having been run over by US tanks. The message is clear. In the land of the Arabian Nights, even the genie can`t fix Iraq. "



posted by Juan @ [url9/16/2004 06:48:48 AM]http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109531141379811591[/url]

Sistani Insists on Elections

Al-Zaman: Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani called on Wednesday for general elections to be held at the scheduled time (January 2005). He made the statement during a meeting of the Shiite leadership held in his office in Najaf. Present were Muhammad Said al-Hakim, Bashir Najafi, and Ishaq al-Fayyad in adition to Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Sistani underlined the necessity of "tossing out conflicts and emphasizing a closing of ranks, as well as intensifying efforts to create complete national unity in order to confront the danger that menaces the country." Sistani called on the caretaker Iraqi government to take measures to release prisoners whose guilt has not been established, and to work to rebuild the cities that were damaged by the acts of violence and clashes. He asked for compensation to be given to those harmed, especially in the city of Najaf. He also called on the government to "treat problems with calm and wisdom instead of resorting to violence." (All this according to Deutsche Press Agentur). Al-Hayat says Sistani called on Allawi to "stop the bloodbath." He further insisted on more popular participation and on "filling in the gaps in the laws governing elections and parties" that were enacted by US civil administrator Paul Bremer and his appointed Interim Governing Council.

There are rumors that PM Iyad Allawi had wanted to storm the shrine of Ali in late August, and had been displeased with Sistani`s intervention to promote a non-violent end of the crisis.

In fact, the Iraqi government did let 750 prisoners go from Abu Ghuraib Prison as part of a commitment to process the prisoners there one way or another.

Sistani`s quite resonable demand for elections is nevertheless among the greatest dangers facing the Allawi government and the Americans. It will be extremely difficult actually to hold the elections on time. But Sistani believes only such elections can produce a legitimate government, and he already accepted a six-month delay. If the elections are not held, and if Sistani begins to fear they won`t be held soon, he may well call the masses into the streets. That could lead to an overthrow of Allawi and an expulsion of the Americans. Keep your eye on February and March of 2005.

Incidentally, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan predicted that it would be impossible to hold the elections on time. He also went on record that the Bush administration`s war against Iraq had been illegal, contravening the US charter that forbids the launching of wars without UN Security Council authorization. Annan insists that there should have been a second UNSC vote.

The inclusion of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim in the meeting of the Grand Ayatollahs strikes me as extremely significant. Al-Hakim is probably only a Hujjat al-Islam, the stage below ayatollah, and so would not ordinarily be at a senior meeting. But because he heads a major political party, SCIRI, as well as its paramilitary, the Badr Corps, he seems to be being consulted by his seniors.

Al-Hakim lived in Tehran from the early 1980s until 2003 and has excellent relations with the hardliners in Iran, even though he has been cooperating with the Americans for the past two years. From summer of 2003, Sistani began allying with the al-Hakims and implicitly with SCIRI as a way of combatting the Sadrist movement, which has long had ambiguous feelings toward Sistani. The Sadrists maintain that al-Hakim and SCIRI spied on them for the Americans and encouraged the recent attack on them in Najaf. Although the Badr Corps was trained by the Revolutionary Guards in Iran and had been reputed to be formidable, so far it seems to have come off badly in any fight with the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr. It also seems to be the case that the Sadr movement has attracted far more followers in the past year than its rival, SCIRI, which remains a smaller movement. It is therefore not entirely clear how valuable Sistani`s tacit alliance with SCIRI is to him.

Al-Hakim has most recently been in the news because he denounced the US operation in Tal Afar (a largely Shiite Turkmen city).

Meanwhile, Sorayya Sarhaddi Nelson reports that the multi-million dollar Najaf reconstruction plan involves a provision to raze buildings considered too near to the Imam Ali Shrine. Among these are the HQ offices of the Sadr Movement, i.e. of Muqtada al-Sadr. These offices had been used by Muqtada`s father, revered by almost all Iraqi Shiites, Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr. On these grounds, the Sadrists are voicing strong opposition to the plan, as a desecration of Sadr II`s memory. They say only the decree of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani would convince them.

The plan to get rid of those buildings appears to originate with US-appointed Najaf governor, Adnan al-Zurfi, whom the Sadrists view as an American agent.

Al-Hayat reports that Basra police closed a political office of Muqtada al-Sadr in the Shatt al-Arab district and arrested four of his supporters.

posted by Juan @ 9/16/2004 06:04:55 AM
Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Kurdish Settlement in Kirkuk and Geopolitics

Jim Krane of AP has an excellent piece today on the demographic struggle taking place in Kirkuk, Iraqi`s northern oil city of some 750,000. In April of 2003 one reporter estimated that the population was 250,000 each, Turkmen, Arab and Kurd. The Arabs were settled there by Saddam and are disproportionately Shiites from the South. The Turkmen are mixed, but include a strong Shiite contingent, many of whom have given up the Turkmen folk Shiism in favor of the urban, clerical religion common among the Arabs of the south. Kirkuk is therefore one stronghold of the Sadr Movement, but the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq also has supporters there. My guess is that it was about half Shiite.

The Kurds are largely Sunni. They had come to predominate in the city in the 1960s and 1970s, but then Saddam deported a lot of them and brought in the Arabs.

Krane cites estimates that 72,000 Kurds have come into Kirkuk during the past 17 months, and 50,000 Arabs have fled back south. If the original estimates were true, then there would now be more like 320,000 Kurds and 200,000 Arabs in this city of 750,000, with Turkmen (who had dominated earlier in the 20th century) also adding small numbers of reimmigrants to their 250,000. Recently, as many as 500 Kurds a day have been coming to the city. That is, another 15,000 could be added by the time the quick and dirty census planned for October is carried out. That census in turn will be the basis for proportional representation in the planned January elections.

Turkmen and Arabs are afraid that the Kurds are using this demographic movement to engorge Kirkuk and ensure that it is added to the Kurdish super-province they are planning, which in turn would be at least semi-autonomous from Baghdad. When Kurdish leaders announced that they wanted Kirkuk in their proposed Kurdistan late last December, it provoked riots and gunplay between Kurds on the one hand and Turkmen and Arabs on the other. Much of the petroleum is in the north

Turkmen appear to be suspicious that the recent US assault on dissidents in the Turkmen city of Tal Afar was in part provoked by Kurdish misinformation and was aimed at reducing the autonomy of the Turkmen, who are the main opposition to the formation of the Kurdish super-province.

Political reporters who only pay attention to Barzani, Talabani and Allawi are missing this big story, which Krane has intelligently laid out. The struggle is social.

posted by Juan @ 9/15/2004 03:19:35 PM

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Auf der Seite ist noch mehr:
http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/

[Joerver]

John Kerry: `My economic policy`
Date: Thursday, September 16 @ 10:31:21 EDT
Topic: Election 2004

By John Kerry, The Wall Street Journal

As I travel across this country, I meet store owners, stock traders, factory foremen and optimistic entrepreneurs. Their experiences may be different, but they all agree that America can do better under an administration that is better for business. Business leaders like Warren Buffett, Lee Iacocca and Robert Rubin are joining my campaign because they believe that American businesses will do better if we change our CEO.

Since January 2001, the economy has lost 1.6 million private-sector jobs. The typical family has seen its income fall more than $1,500, while health costs are up more than $3,500.

Today, American companies are investing less and exporting less than they were in 2000 - the first time investment and exports have been down during any presidential term in over 70 years. At the same time, our trade deficit has grown to more than 5% of the economy for the first time ever, a troublesome and unsustainable development.



The economy still has not turned the corner. Over the last year, real wages are still down and even the jobs created in the past 12 months represent the worst job performance for this period of a recovery in over 50 years. Indeed, the total of 1.7 million jobs created over the last year is weaker than even the worst year of job creation under President Clinton, and below what is needed just to find jobs for new applicants entering the work force.

Forty-three months into his presidency, George Bush`s main explanation for this dismal economic record is an assortment of blame and excuses. Yet what President Bush cannot explain is how the last 11 presidents before him - Democrats and Republicans - faced wars, recessions and international crises, and yet only he has presided over lost jobs, declining real exports, and the swing from a $5.6 trillion surplus to trillions of dollars of deficits.

While the private sector will always be America`s engine for innovation and job creation, President Bush has failed to take any responsibility for missing opportunities to strengthen the conditions for investment, economic confidence and job creation.

When the economy needed short-run stimulus without increasing the long-run deficit, President Bush got it backwards, passing an initial round of tax cuts that Economy.com found had no effect in lifting us out of recession. He then passed more deficit-increasing tax cuts that Goldman Sachs described as "especially ineffective as a stimulative measure." When small businesses and families needed relief from skyrocketing health-care and energy costs, he chose sweetheart deals for special interests over serious plans to reduce costs and help spur new job creation.

With the right choices on the economy, America can do better. American businesses and workers are the most resilient, productive and innovative in the world. And they deserve policies that are better for our economy. My economic plan will do the following: (1) Create good jobs, (2) cut middle-class taxes and health-care costs, (3) restore America`s competitive edge, and (4) cut the deficit and restore economic confidence.

# Create good jobs. I strongly believe that America must engage in the global economy, and I voted for trade opening from Nafta to the WTO. But at the same time, I have always believed that we need to fight for a level playing field for America`s workers.

I am not trying to stop all outsourcing, but as president, I will end every single incentive that encourages companies to outsource. Today, taxpayers spend $12 billion a year to subsidize the export of jobs. If a company is trying to choose between building a factory in Michigan or Malaysia, our tax code actually encourages it to locate in Asia.

My plan would take the entire $12 billion we save from closing these loopholes each year and use it to cut corporate tax rates by 5%. This will provide a tax cut for 99% of taxpaying corporations. This would be the most sweeping reform and simplification of international taxation in over 40 years. In addition, I have proposed a two-year new jobs tax credit to encourage manufacturers, other businesses affected by outsourcing, and small businesses that created jobs.

American businesses are the most competitive in the world, yet when it comes to enforcing trade agreements the Bush administration refuses to show our competitors that we mean business. They have brought only one WTO case for every three brought by the Clinton administration, while cutting trade enforcement budgets and failing to stand up to China`s illegal currency manipulation. That not only costs jobs, it threatens to erode support for open markets and a growing global economy.

# Cut middle-class taxes and health costs. Families are being increasingly squeezed by falling incomes and rising costs for everything from health care to college. But spiraling health-care and energy costs squeeze businesses too, encouraging them to lay off workers and shift to part-time and temporary workers.

Under my plan, the tax cuts would be extended and made permanent for 98% of Americans. In addition, I support new tax cuts for college, child care and health care - in total, more than twice as large as the new tax cuts President Bush is proposing.

I have proposed a health plan that would increase coverage while cutting costs. It builds on and strengthens the current system, giving patients their choice of doctors, and providing new incentives instead of imposing new mandates.

My health plan will offer businesses immediate relief on their premiums. By providing employers some relief on catastrophic costs that are driving up premiums for everyone, we will save employers and workers about 10% of total health premiums.

Our hospitals and doctors have the best technology for saving lives, but often still rely on pencil and paper when it comes to tracking medical tests and billing. As a result, we spend over $350 billion a year on red tape, not to mention the cost of performing duplicative or redundant tests. My plan will modernize our information technology, create private electronic medical records, and create incentives for the adoption of the latest disease management.

And I won`t be afraid to take on prescription drug or medical malpractice costs. We will make it easier for generic drugs to come to market and allow the safe importation of pharmaceuticals from countries like Canada. Finally, we will require medical malpractice plaintiffs to try nonbinding mediation, oppose unjustified punitive damage awards and penalize lawyers who file frivolous suits with a tough "three strikes and you`re out" rule.

This plan will make our businesses more competitive by making our health care more affordable.

# Restore America`s competitive edge. America has fallen to 10th in the world in broadband technology. Some of our best scientists are being encouraged to work overseas because of the restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research. President Bush has proposed cutting 21 of the 24 research areas that are so critical to long-term growth. We need to invest in research because when we shortchange research we shortchange our future.

My plan would invest in basic research and end the ban on stem-cell research. It would invest more in energy research, including clean coal, hydrogen and other alternative fuels. It would boost funding at the National Science Foundation and continue increases at the National Institutes of Health and other government research labs. It will provide tax credits to help jumpstart broadband in rural areas and the new higher-speed broadband that has the potential to transform everything from e-government to tele-medicine. I would promote private-sector innovation policies, including the elimination of capital gains for long-term investments in small business start-ups.

To ensure we have the workers to compete in an innovation economy, we need more young people to not only enter but complete college, we need more young women and minorities to enter the fields of math and science, and we need to make it easier for working parents to get the lifelong learning opportunities they need to excel at both their current and their future jobs.

# Cut the deficit and restore economic confidence. When President Bush was in New York for the Republican convention, he did not even pay lip service to reducing the deficit. His record makes even Republicans wary. From missions to Mars to a pricey Medicare bill, President Bush has proposed or passed more than $6 trillion in initiatives without paying for any of them. The record is clear: A deficit reduction promise from George W. Bush is not exactly a gilt-edged bond.

Americans can trust my promise to cut the deficit because my record backs up my word. When I first joined the Senate, I broke with my own party to support the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction plan, which President Reagan signed into law. In 1993, I cast a deciding vote to bring the deficit under control. And in 1997, I supported the bipartisan balanced budget agreement.

I will restore fiscal discipline and cut the deficit in half in four years. First, by imposing caps, so that discretionary spending - outside of security and education - does not grow faster than inflation. If Congress cannot control spending, it will automatically be cut across the board. Second, I will reinstitute the "pay as you go" rule, which requires that no one propose or pass a new program without a way to pay for it. Third, I will ask for Congress to grant me a constitutionally acceptable version of line-item veto power and to establish a commission to eliminate corporate welfare like the one John McCain and I have fought for.

I am not waiting for next year to change the tone on fiscal discipline. Every day on the campaign trail, I explain how I pay for all my proposals. By rolling back the recent Bush tax cuts for families making over $200,000 per year, we can pay for health care and education. By cutting subsidies to banks that make student loans and restoring the principle that "polluters pay," we can afford to invest in national service and new energy technologies. My new rules won`t just apply to programs I don`t like; they will apply to my own priorities as well.

Cleaning up President Bush`s fiscal mess will not be easy, but to ensure a strong and sustainable economic future we have to make the tough choices to move America`s growing deficits back in the right direction.

On Nov. 2 we will have a national shareholders meeting. On the ballot will be the choice to continue with President Bush`s policies or return to the fiscal sanity and pro-growth polices that proved so successful in the 1990s. You will choose.

Mr. Kerry is the Democratic Party`s candidate for president.

Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109520704799518119,
00.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Baghdad Burning

... I`ll meet you `round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11...
August was a hellish month. The heat was incredible. No one remembers Baghdad ever being quite this hot- I think we broke a new record somewhere in mid-August.

The last few days, Baghdad has been echoing with explosions. We woke up to several loud blasts a few days ago. The sound has become all too common. It’s like the heat, the flies, the carcasses of buildings, the broken streets and the haphazard walls coming up out of nowhere all over the city… it has become a part of life. We were sleeping on the roof around three days ago, but I had stumbled back indoors at around 5 am when the electricity returned and was asleep under the cool air of an air-conditioner when the first explosions rang out.

I tried futilely to cling to the last fragments of a fading dream and go back to sleep when several more explosions followed. Upon getting downstairs, I found E. flipping through the news channels, trying to find out what was going on. “They aren’t nearly fast enough,” he shook his head with disgust. “We’re not going to know what’s happening until noon.”

But the news began coming in much sooner. There were clashes between armed Iraqis and the Americans on Haifa Street- a burned out hummer, some celebrating crowds, missiles from helicopters, a journalist dead, dozens of Iraqis wounded, and several others dead. The road leading to the airport has seen some action these last few days- more attacks on troops and also some attacks on Iraqi guard. The people in the areas surrounding the airport claim that no one got any sleep the whole night.

The areas outside of Baghdad aren’t much better off. The south is still seeing clashes between the Sadir militia and troops. Areas to the north of Baghdad are being bombed and attacked daily. Ramadi was very recently under attack and they say that they aren’t allowing the wounded out of the city. Tel Affar in the north of the country is under siege and Falloojeh is still being bombed.

Everyone is simply tired in Baghdad. We’ve become one of those places you read about in the news and shake your head thinking, “What’s this world coming to?” Kidnappings. Bombings. Armed militias. Extremists. Drugs. Gangs. Robberies. You name it, and we can probably tell you several interesting stories.

So how did I spend my 9/11? I watched Michael Moore’s movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. I’ve had bootleg CD version since early August. (Grave apologies to Michael Moore- but there’s no other way we can see it here…) The copy has been sitting in a drawer with a bunch of other CDs. One of my cousins brought it over one day and said that while it was brilliant, it was also quite depressing and distressing all at once. I had been avoiding it because, quite frankly, I cannot stand to see Bush for five minutes straight- I wasn’t sure how I’d cope with almost two hours.

Three days ago, I took it out while the house was relatively quiet- no cousins, no cousins’ children, parents busy watching something or another, and E. asleep in front of the air conditioner for the next three hours.

The CD was surprisingly clear. I had expected some fuzziness and bad sound quality- it was fine. Someone had made the copy inside a movie theater. I could tell because in the background, there was a ringing mobile phone a couple of times and some annoying person in the front kept getting up to adjust his seat.

I was caught up in the film from the first moment, until the very last. There were moments, while watching, when I could barely breathe. I wasn’t surprised with anything- there was nothing that shocked me- all of the stuff about the Bush family and their Saudi friends was old news. It was the other stuff that had an impact- seeing the reactions of Americans to the war, seeing the troops in Iraq being interviewed, seeing that American mother before and after she lost her son in Iraq.

Ah, that mother. How she made me angry in the beginning. I couldn’t stand to see her on screen- convincing the world that joining the army was the ideal thing to do- perfectly happy that her daughter and son were ‘serving’ America- nay, serving, in fact, the world by joining up. I hated her even more as they showed the Iraqi victims- the burning buildings, the explosions, the corpses- the dead and the dying. I wanted to hate her throughout the whole film because she embodied the arrogance and ignorance of the people who supported the war.

I can’t explain the feelings I had towards her. I pitied her because, apparently, she knew very little about what she was sending her kids into. I was angry with her because she really didn’t want to know what she was sending her children to do. In the end, all of those feelings crumbled away as she read the last letter from her deceased son. I began feeling a sympathy I really didn’t want to feel, and as she was walking in the streets of Washington, looking at the protestors and crying, it struck me that the Americans around her would never understand her anguish. The irony of the situation is that the one place in the world she would ever find empathy was Iraq. We understand. We know what it’s like to lose family and friends to war- to know that their final moments weren’t peaceful ones… that they probably died thirsty and in pain… that they weren’t surrounded by loved ones while taking their final breath.

When she asked why her son had been taken and that he had been a good person… why did this have to happen to him? I kept wondering if she ever gave a second thought to the Iraqi victims and whether it ever occurred to her that Iraqi parents perhaps have the same thoughts as the try to dig their children out from under the rubble of fallen homes in Falloojeh, or as they attempt to stop the blood flowing out of a gaping hole in the chest of a child in Karbala.

The flashes of the bombing of Iraq and the victims were more painful than I thought they would be. We lived through it, but seeing it on a screen is still a torment. I thought that this last year and a half had somehow made me a little bit tougher when it came to seeing Iraq being torn apart by bombs and watching foreign troops destroy the country- but the wound is still as raw as ever. Watching those scenes was like poking at a gash with sharp stick- it hurt.

All in all, the film was… what is the right word for it? Great? Amazing? Fantastic? No. It made me furious, it made me sad and I cried more than I’d like to admit… but it was brilliant. The words he used to narrate were simple and to the point. I wish everyone could see the film. I know I`ll be getting dozens of emails from enraged Americans telling me that so-and-so statement was exaggerated, etc. But it really doesn`t matter to me. What matters is the underlying message of the film- things aren`t better for Americans now than they were in 2001, and they certainly aren`t better for Iraqis.

Three years ago, Iraq wasn`t a threat to America. Today it is. Since March 2003, over 1000 Americans have died inside of Iraq... and the number is rising. In twenty years time, upon looking back, how do Americans think Iraqis are going to remember this occupation?

I constantly wonder, three years after 9/11, do Americans feel safer? When it first happened, there was a sort of collective shock in Iraq. In 2002, there was a sort of pity and understanding- we’ve been through the same. Americans could hardly believe what had happened, but the American government brings this sort of grief upon nations annually… suddenly the war wasn’t thousands of kilometers away, it was home.

How do we feel about it this year? A little bit tired.

We have 9/11’s on a monthly basis. Each and every Iraqi person who dies with a bullet, a missile, a grenade, under torture, accidentally- they all have families and friends and people who care. The number of Iraqis dead since March 2003 is by now at least eight times the number of people who died in the World Trade Center. They had their last words, and their last thoughts as their worlds came down around them, too. I’ve attended more wakes and funerals this last year, than I’ve attended my whole life. The process of mourning and the hollow words of comfort have become much too familiar and automatic.

September 11… he sat there, reading the paper. As he reached out for the cup in front of him for a sip of tea, he could vaguely hear the sound of an airplane overhead. It was a bright, fresh day and there was much he had to do… but the world suddenly went black- a colossal explosion and then crushed bones under the weight of concrete and iron… screams rose up around him… men, women and children… shards of glass sought out tender, unprotected skin … he thought of his family and tried to rise, but something inside of him was broken… there was a rising heat and the pungent smell of burning flesh mingled sickeningly with the smoke and the dust… and suddenly it was blackness.

9/11/01? New York? World Trade Center?

No.

9/11/04. Falloojeh. An Iraqi home.




- posted by river @ 2:49 PM

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

The burden of being a superpower
By Henry C K Liu
Sep 17, 2004

Hier im Thread oder bei Asia Times Online:
Other articles in this series:
Geopolitics in Iraq an old game

Geopolitical weeds in the cradle of civilization

A poisonous geopolitical jungle

Iraq rebuilds, with a little US help
A ceasefire agreement between Iraq and Iran was signed on August 20, 1988. Iraq then rebuilt its military capability with bank credits and technology from Western Europe and the United States, financed mostly by Saudi Arabia. Five days after the ceasefire, Saddam Hussein sent planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against Kurd separatists. In September 1988 the US Department of Commerce again approved shipment of weapons-grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq for use in domestic security operations. In that month assistant secretary of state Richard Murphy said: "The US-Iraqi relationship is ... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." That December, Dow Chemical sold US$1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq, despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons domestically. Brutal actions against Kurdish separatists were undertaken in 1988 in northern Iraq, where Ali Hassan al-Majid was accused of ordering the gas attack against civilians that killed about 5,000. It took six years and a change in geopolitical conditions before the US shed crocodile`s tears for the tragedy.

The US legally and illegally helped build Saddam`s military into the most powerful war machine in the Middle East outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied intelligence and battle-planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The US blocked UN censure of Iraq`s use of chemical weapons. The US continued to supply the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known that Saddam was using this technology to kill Kurdish separatists. The US did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union and later Russia was the largest weapons supplier, but Britain, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology. All sold weapons to both sides of the war.

Iraq searches for identity
Since 1958, when the last persistently pro-West Iraqi government in Baghdad was overthrown, and diplomatic relations between the US and Iraq formally broken nine years later, first-hand knowledge of Iraq and of the successive regimes that had since governed it has been unavailable to senior officials in Washington, whose fixation on global anti-communism left them with little interest on subtleties. The US had largely operated in a policy vacuum without the support of full understanding of Iraq, of its people and most importantly of the concerns that motivated its leaders. Much of US policy on Iraq has been based on advice from biased Iraqi exiles, opportunistic academics and self-serving pro-Israel partisans.

Notwithstanding Washington`s penchant to demonize its latest enemies, Iraqi leaders, at least those not having been imposed by foreign powers, not unlike independent leaders anywhere else, are motivated and constrained in their policy deliberation by their perception of popular aspirations which are shaped by a nation`s collective self-image, history and cultural tradition. The self-image of the Arabic people is one of a long victimized people, most recently at the hands of Western imperialism and historically of Christian bias, persecuted for their Arabic ethnicity and Islamic heritage. Iraq, like all Middle East nations, aspires to be finally free of foreign intervention in its domestic affairs, to enjoy a high standard of living in peace and harmony consistent with its oil riches as God`s gift. These national aspirations have been shaped by a history of wounded national pride, of betrayal by foreign allies who exploited inter-tribal rivalry, of evolving nationalism, of ethnic, religious and linguistic tension, and of demographic pressure from an increasingly youthful and impatient population. In Iraq, as in many other countries in the region, more than half of the population of 25 million is under the age of 25 who have not accumulated any assets that would provide incentive to be politically conservative.

Besides history, Iraqi politics is influenced by its location and geography, climate and the availability of water, which in many ways is more critical than oil. The scarcity of water in the Middle East, heightened by rapid urbanization and industrialization, has placed more importance on Iraq`s two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. Even with the ascendance of oil as a source of wealth, agriculture relying on renewable water remains the main source of employment. These factors have influenced settlement patterns, tribalism, resource utilization and the development of diverse regional economics. For example, the fact that these two rivers flood between April and June, too late for winter crops and too early for summer crops, means that agriculture depends on irrigation, which has been under central government control since the creation of the Iraq state, implemented with the cooperation of diverse ethnic, religious and tribal groups. Water was able to unite the Iraqi population more than oil. Baghdad, located in the center of the country, lies in the transitional zone between north and south where the Tigris becomes navigable and large-scale irrigation possible. The capital city is a historical center of trade and communication.

The present boundaries of Iraq, undefined until 1926, were drawn in the 20th century by European political and economic interests with little regard for indigenous demographic patterns. There is a tension between the Iraqi state, representing the central authority within its borders, and the Iraqi nation, a tribal society divided by religious schism. As Faisal, the first Hashimite king of Iraq, lamented in the early 1930s: "I say in my heart full of sadness that there is not yet in Iraq an Iraqi people." This is the root argument of pan-Arabism in Iraqi politics. The history of the Arab Ba`ath Socialist Party reflects the evolution of modern Middle East politics, in that it has departed from formal ideology of its original founders to adopt pragmatic measures to solve real problems within an Arabic/Islamic world view. The war with Iran, the most costly and bloody conflict not involving a Western power directly since World War II, and the Iraqi incorporation of Kuwait, were not mere conflicts over borders, or access to the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The Iran-Iraq war was a clash between extremist Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran and the pan-Arab nationalism of the Ba`athists, both in and out of Iraq.

The irreconcilability of the two opposing ideologies is based on Iranian rejection of limiting radical Islamic fundamentalism within one country, and Ba`athist resistance to a world Islamic revolution, manifesting in Iraq as resistance to Iranian incitement of the large Shi`ite population in Iraq, many of whom are of Iranian descent. The incorporation of Kuwait was a fulfillment of pan-Arab nationalism.

Iraq, situating on the eastern flank of the Arab world, is sandwiched between two historical formidable non-Arab powers which have survived as the modern states of Turkey and Iran, with whom Iraq shares ethnic groups. Propinquity translates into vulnerability. In a speech on November 5, 1980, Saddam said: "Turkey once imposed on us the Turkish language and culture ... They used to take turns on Iraq. Turkey goes and Iran comes; Iran goes and Turkey comes. All this under the guise of Islam. Enough ... We are Iraqis and are part of the Arab homeland and the Arab nation. Iraq belongs to us." He was using the term Iraq the way it was used in the Koran, denoting all of Mesopotamia in a pan-Arab context, not the modern state of Iraq, whose borders were delineated by British imperialism.

It has been suggested that the US deliberately lured Saddam into Kuwait in order to attack an increasingly intransigent Iraq. Saddam`s meeting with US ambassador April Glaspie is usually cited as evidence. The records of that meeting indicate that Glaspie did not discourage Saddam, let alone warn him about his highly visible massing of troops along the Kuwait border. But the real purpose was not related to Iraqi aggression or intransigence. It was to exploit the contradiction between Arab regionalism and pan-Arabism to strengthen US control of the region. Saddam told the US that he expected just reward for Iraq`s role in helping the US contain a hostile and extremist Iran, in a war that had cost 60,000 Iraqi lives in one single battle, a price Saddam claimed the US would be unable to shoulder itself, given the nature of US society. Iraq was left with a foreign debt of more than $40 billion after the Iraq-Iran War, and needed higher oil prices of around $40 per barrel to help pay this debt. Kuwait was deliberately keeping oil prices low to destroy Iraq`s economy. Glaspie responded that there were people from oil states within the US who would also want to see higher oil prices.

A transcript excerpt of the meeting between Saddam and Glaspie, on July 25, 1990 (eight days before the August 2, 1990, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait), released by British journalists, reads as follows:

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad.
Ambassador Glaspie: I have direct instructions from President Bush [Sr] to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait`s borders?

Saddam Hussein: As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we [the Iraqis] meet [with the Kuwaitis] and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

Ambassador Glaspie: What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein: If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al-Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions [to the Kuwaitis]. But if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq [ie, in Saddam`s view, including Kuwait] then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States` opinion on this?

Ambassador Glaspie: We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of state James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

While pledging US neutrality on Arab-Arab conflicts, thus not discouraging Iraq from moving against Kuwait, the US at the same time gave Kuwait, through then defense secretary Dick Cheney, assurances that it would defend it against an attack from Iraq, emboldening Kuwait to refuse to negotiate.

The US goes to war in the Gulf
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. Four days later, on August 6, the United Nations imposed heavy sanctions on Iraq, on request from the US. Simultaneously, after consulting with US secretary of defense Cheney, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, the head of the Arab regionalist snake, invited US troops on to Saudi soil. The unhappy fate of Kuwait had led the Saudi king to seek protection from the US against the march of pan-Arabism. Iraq`s transgression was not so much to repossess Kuwait as an integral part of Iraq, but that it claimed Kuwait as the first step on the march toward pan-Arabism. If Iraq were to be allowed to keep Kuwait on the basis of pan-Arabism, the survival of the Arab regionalist states will be directly threatened.

President George H W Bush quickly announced that the US would launch a "wholly defensive" mission to prevent Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia, and US troops moved into Saudi Arabia on August 7, 1990. Those who thought simplistically that the US moved troops into Saudi Arabia to protect Saudi oil were missing the point. At the time, Iraq was selling a higher percentage of its oil to the US than Saudi Arabia, and there was no reason to expect Iraq to change its oil export strategy. The Iraqi purpose in repossessing Kuwait oil was to sell it, not to hoard it. Yet the idea of a war to protect oil supply enjoyed wide automatic support in US politics, more than obscure geopolitical calculations, especially when greed and power have been celebrated in US society as moral positives since the 1970s. Under the cover of protection of oil supply, the US moved troops into Saudi Arabia to stop the march of pan-Arabism. It was a fateful development, as the al-Qaeda pretext for the attacks on US soil on September 11, 2001, 11 years later was centered on demands for the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. The unintended consequences of geopolitical stratagem was being expressed through the iron law of terrorism of what goes around, comes around, known generally as the blowback effect, a term coined by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

On September 25, the UN imposed an interdiction on air traffic to and from Iraq. On November 29, the US got its UN war resolution. John Pilger reported in The Guardian that this was achieved through a campaign of bribery, blackmail and threats. In 1990, Egypt was the most indebted country in Africa. Secretary of state James Baker bribed president Hosni Mubarak with $14 billion in "debt forgiveness" in exchange for Egypt withholding opposition to the pending war on Iraq. Washington gave President Hafez al-Assad the green light to wipe out all opposition to Syrian rule in Lebanon, plus a billion dollars` worth of arms. Iran was bribed with a US promise to drop its opposition to World Bank loans. Bribing the Soviet Union was especially urgent, as Moscow was close to pulling off a deal that would allow Saddam to extricate himself from Kuwait peacefully. However, with its wrecked economy, the Soviet Union was easy prey. Bush sent the Saudi foreign minister to Moscow to offer a billion dollars before the Russian winter set in to compensate for Soviet investment in Iraq. Mikhail Gorbachev, with life-threatening political problems of his own at home, quickly agreed to the war resolution, and another $3 billion from other Gulf oil states was wired to the Soviet government to secure outstanding Iraqi debts to the USSR.

The votes of the non-permanent members of the Security Council were crucial. Zaire, occupying the rotating chair, was offered undisclosed "debt forgiveness" and military equipment in return for silencing Security Council members during the attack. Only Cuba and Yemen held out. Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to attack Iraq, a senior US diplomat characterized the vote to the Yemeni ambassador as the most expensive "no" vote he ever cast. Within three days, a US aid program of $70 million to one of the world`s poorest countries was suspended. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were abruptly expelled from Saudi Arabia.

On January 16, 1991, the United States led an international coalition from US bases in Saudi Arabia to invade occupied Kuwait and Iraq. The US established a broad-based international coalition to confront Iraq militarily and diplomatically to defend the international principle of non-aggression. The coalition consisted of Afghanistan*, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh*, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia*, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany*, Greece, Hungary, Honduras*, Israel, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger*, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania*, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea*, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States (countries marked with * were non-combatants.) The coalition included all Arab regionalist states, such as Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, the UAE, Morocco, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and above all, Saudi Arabia. To crush pan-Arabism by exploiting its conflict with Arab regionalism was the geopolitical purpose for the US attack on Iraq. The war was financed by countries which were unable to send troops. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the rich regionalists, were the main financial donors. More than $53 billion was pledged and received.

Exhaustive remote-controlled precision bombings were followed by blitzkrieg movements of ground troops. Tens of thousands of Iraqis troops were killed by smart-bomb air strikes, never having even come within sight of the enemy, and most of the military infrastructure was destroyed together with much of the civilian infrastructure. On March 3, a ceasefire was reached between US-led coalition forces and Iraq. By April, Iraq suppressed rebellions in the south by Shi`ites, and in the north by Kurds. Millions of Kurds fled to Turkey and Iran. US, British and French troops moved into northern Iraq to set up refugee camps and to protect the Kurds. In May, Iraq was presented with an international claim for compensation of $100 billion, which dwarfed the $23 billion reparation imposed on Germany after World War I that was considered incredibly excessive and as contributing to the rise of Nazism in the defeated nation. But the government of Saddam survived, while the Iraqi population suffered a decade of sanctions that caused the death of 2 million people, 800,000 of whom were children. While pan-Arabism was dealt a setback, the suffering of the Arab people in Iraq boosted Arab solidarity in the region.

Bush Sr and his national security adviser explained their decision on "Why we didn`t remove Saddam" in an interview with Time (March 2, 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the US nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep", and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find [Manuel] Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the UN`s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the US could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome."

Essentially the same argument was repeated in their book, A World Transformed.

And off to war again ...
Yet a decade later, in response to terrorist attacks of September 11, the second Bush administration launched a regime-changing invasion of Iraq, on a number of drummed-up pretexts that in hindsight proved to be unsubstantiated, ranging from preemptive strike against weapons of mass destruction to spread of democracy, to humanitarian intervention. It is a misnomer to characterize current US policy as preemptive defense. It is more accurate to call it presumptive defense. A legitimate government far away from the US with no credible threat capability against the US was toppled by military force not because it actually possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the US, but that it was presumed to have possessed or at least would seek to possess them in character with its alleged evil constitution as defined by US short-term geopolitical consideration.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, the administration dove who spoke of "regime change" in Iraq for at least 18 months prior to actual beginning of the second war on Iraq, said as the war drew near that the US might not seek to remove Saddam if he would abandoned his weapons of mass destruction. It was the latest in a series of comments by Powell that seemed to back away from the White House goal of deposing the Iraqi president, which remained as steadfast Bush administration policy. "We think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime," Powell told the UN Security Council. "But the principal offence here is weapons of mass destruction, and that`s what this resolution is working on. The major issue before us is disarmament. All we are interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction." But George W Bush said on October 7 that he was "not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein". Earlier he had told the public: "This man tried to kill my daddy!"

The record shows that Powell, the good cop as opposed to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld the bad cop, was also an early proponent of the regime-change policy. He told the House International Relations Committee on March 7, 2001, that the administration was considering such a policy. In February, he told the same committee that "regime change" was policy, and the US "might have to do it alone". He began backing away in an October 2 interview with USA Today`s editorial board. Should Iraq be fully disarmed, he said, "Then, in effect, you have a different kind of regime no matter who`s in Baghdad." On ABC, Powell put it this way: "Either Iraq cooperates, and we get this disarmament done through peaceful means; or they do not cooperate, and we will use other means to get the job done."

The US asserted that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons and could be close to making nuclear arms. Congress had given Bush authority to use military force, after coordinating with the UN to see whether inspections could be made to work. The Security Council maneuver that the US had expected to be smooth sailing turned into a five-week round-robin of talks and a pitched battle of wills with France. The fracas gave rise to criticism by many countries that the US had pressed its case against Iraq too hard, not only straining international law but also causing anxiety about how Washington would play its role as the lone superpower, now faced with the new threat of global terrorism.

President Jacques Chirac of France, traveling in the Middle East, demanded postponing authorizing war against Iraq until after UN weapons inspectors had completed their work. The US was not eager to compromise, but both Washington and Paris recognized that a rift between them could be very damaging and that there were important advantages to widening support for any American action taken against Iraq.

Bush administration officials characterized the protracted talks as an example of UN vacillation. Bush raised question on the UN`s relevance. Powell told NBC that he expected the UN Security Council to enact a resolution setting strong guidelines for inspection teams to be sent back into Iraq. But, he added, "The issue right now is not even how tough an inspection regime is or isn`t. The question is will Saddam and the Iraqi regime cooperate - really, really cooperate - and let the inspections do their job. All we are interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction." Rumsfeld began talking about the "New Europe" of former Soviet satellites as against the irrelevant "Old Europe" of France and Germany in the new world order.

On February 5, 2003, Powell presented "proof" to the United Nations Security Council that Iraq still produced and held weapons for mass destruction. Western non-affiliated inspectors to Iraq later declared Powell`s proof on mass destruction to be a "lie", while the US officially attributed the untruths to intelligence failure.

Investigative journalist Bob Woodward of Watergate fame provided in his sensational book, Plan of Attack, the first detailed, behind-the-scenes account of how and why the president decided to wage war in Iraq based on conversations with 75 of the key decision-makers, including Bush himself. The president permitted Woodward to quote him directly. Others spoke on the condition that Woodward not identify them as sources. Woodward reports that just five days after September 11, Bush indicated to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that while he had to do Afghanistan first, he was also determined to do something about Saddam. "There`s some pressure to go after Saddam Hussein," Woodward quoted Rumsfeld as hearing the president saying: "This is an opportunity to take out Saddam Hussein, perhaps. We should consider it." And Woodward quoted the president saying to Condi Rice head-to-head: "We won`t do Iraq now. But it is a question we`re gonna have to return to."

Woodward wrote that "there`s this low boil on Iraq until the day before Thanksgiving, November 21, 2001. This is 72 days after 9/11." This is part of this secret history. Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, took Rumsfeld aside, "collared him physically, and took him into a little cubbyhole room and closed the door and said: `What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret`." Woodward wrote immediately after that, Rumsfeld told General Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam - and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check. Woodward detailed when and how the decision to invade Iraq was made, but he shed no light on why.

Now what`s the plan?
The Bush administration went into Iraq with enormous illusions about how easy the postwar situation would be: it thought the reconstruction would be self-financing, that US forces could draw on a lasting well of gratitude for liberating Iraq from tyranny, and that the US could occupy the country with a small force structure and even draw US forces down significantly within a few months. This illusion is reflected in US policy on force structure. After the Cold War, because of defense budget reduction and popular opposition in the host countries, the US was forced to gradually reduce its troops stationed overseas. US troops abroad had shrunk to 247,000 people before the second Iraq War in April 2002. In 1968, during the height of the Vietnam War, army strength reached 1,570,000; navy 723,600; marine 307,300; and air force 904,900. In 2002, army strength had dropped to 486,500, navy 385,000, marine 173,700 and air force 368,300. The air force, together with navy carrier-based planes, has become the dominant arm of the US military.

At the conclusion of offensive military operations in Iraq, the US Army announced its plan to set up four military bases in occupied territory. Up to now it still has more than 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq and it is expected to keep a considerable scale of forces there for a long time to come. The US occupation authority repeatedly singled out inadequate troop numbers as the main difficulty in carrying out its mission. The US force structure is designed to win short limited wars with smart weapons, but is clearly inadequate for extended occupation of the long list of countries in which US foreign policy aims to effectuate regime changes.

Bush has adopted the "transformationalist" agenda embraced by Rice, who in August 2003 set out US ambitions to remake the Middle East along neo-conservative lines by using US military power to impose democracy and free markets on an Islamic tribal culture. It is a policy for political transformation of Arab countries deemed vital to victory in the "war on terrorism". Yet this policy is at odds with the force structure of the US military, which has been designed to prevail in short intense conflicts, not long drawn-out occupations.

Since the events of September 11, the US has looked on Islamic terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as the greatest threats to its national security, thinking the main threat to be coming from the "unstable arc-shaped region" encompassing the coastal areas of the Caribbean Sea, Africa, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, South Asia and the Korean Peninsula. The US Defense Department has drastically adjusted the disposition of its overseas troops around this "unstable arc-shaped region" in an attempt to cope effectively with a global "preventive" war.

Advance disposition is a deployment concept of positioning in advance a considerable amount of weapons, equipment and supplies in overseas bases, doing the defense and garrison work with very small forces. When a sudden crisis erupts, US forces will be sent by quick transport to the crisis region and, by relying on the advance installed weapons, equipment and supply, quickly generate combat effectiveness in the crisis region and carry out technologically intensive operational tasks. Currently, US forces have deployed equipment and materials for two army divisions in Europe and four marine expeditionary brigades each in Norway, Guam, Diego Garcia and the Atlantic. In addition, US forces have 12 mobile advance-storage ships in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean regions. This strategy does not take into account the massive troop requirement for pacification of occupied lands after an externally imposed regime change. In imposing this new Pax Americana by widespread regime changes, the US will need to maintain a 3-million-man army. What the neo-conservative hawks at the Bush White House fail to realize is that the very "rogue nations" on which they aim to impose regime changes, have been acting as ironic proxies for the US, albeit unruly in US eyes, in maintaining the rat-tat world order the US has won from winning the Cold War. The dismantling of this world order, however imperfect in US eyes, will threaten the world`s sole remaining superpower more than any rogue nation does.

Bush has repeatedly drawn comparisons between the occupation of Iraq to that of post-World War II Germany and Japan, drawing comfort from the alleged success of democratization of these two former enemies. The post-World War II occupation of Germany was a huge and diverse undertaking spanning almost 11 years, conducted in conjunction with three other members of the wartime alliance and involving in various degrees a good number of US governmental departments and agencies. The occupation was for the US Army a mission second only in scope and significance to the war itself.

On V-E (Victory in Europe) Day, General Dwight D Eisenhower had 61 US divisions, 1,622,000 men, in Germany, and a total Allied force in Europe numbering 3,077,000. When the shooting ended, the divisions in the field became occupation troops, charged with maintaining law and order and establishing the Allied military presence in the Western occupied part of the defeated nation. This was a military occupation, the object of which was to control the population and stifle resistance by putting troops into every part of the occupied nation. Divisions were spread out across the countryside, sometimes over great stretches of territory. The 78th Infantry Division, for instance, for a time after V-E day, was responsible for an area of 3,600 square miles, almost twice the size of the state of Delaware, and the 70th Infantry Division for 2,500 square miles. Battalions were deployed separately, and the company was widely viewed as the ideal unit for independent deployment because billets were easy to find and the hauls from the billets to guard posts and checkpoints would not be excessively long. Frequently single platoons and squads were deployed at substantial distances from their company headquarters. There is no indication that the US Defense Department has any such plans or intentions for the occupation of rogue states facing regime change. Iraq with an area of 437,072 square kilometers (168,800 square miles) will take more than 100 divisions to carry out the type of occupation the US devised for Germany. Some 70,000 US troops are assigned to Germany, although the army`s 1st Infantry Division and 1st Armored Division are currently in Iraq, leaving about 40,000 US Army troops, the equivalent of two divisions, in Germany.

The Allied occupation of Germany is approaching its sixth decade, and in the eyes of many Germans it has not yet ended. Foreign armies are still based on German soil and Europe`s largest and most prosperous "democracy" still does not have a constitution and a peace treaty putting a formal end to World War II. If the German model is applied to Iraq, there may never be a formal end to the war in Iraq. Because there is no formal peace treaty between Germany and the Allies headed by the US, German sovereignty is compromised. On October 20, 1985, John Kornblum of the US State Department told Germany`s provisional Reichskanzler Wolfgang Gerhard Geunter Ebel: "Until we have a peace treaty, Germany is a colony of the United States." Ebel headed the provisional government that claims to be the legal successor to the Second German Reich, which was replaced by Adolf Hitler`s illegal Third Reich (1933-45).

In Japan, the US did not engage in any regime change after the war, but built on the existing political culture and regime, including the retaining of the imperial house. Japan has been a successful economy, at least up to the end of the Cold War, but not a particularly successful democracy, with a one-party political system not much different than any communist government. It has also not been a responsible regional citizen, betraying attitudes and policies, especially in respect to its past brutal subjugation of its Asian neighbors that are shameful and geopolitically destabilizing. John Dower argues in his Pulitzer Prize-winning Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II that the origins of these shortcomings can be traced to US occupation policy. US occupation arrived in 1945 full of New Deal statist zeal and determined to transform Japanese politics and society in its liberal image. Cold War geopolitics quickly curbed this reform zeal. The occupation did purge the military and effectively removed militarists from the Japanese political establishment. But military dictatorships that lose wars tend to lose their innate legitimacy, credibility and power, as Napoleon III found out after the Franco-Prussian war and the Argentine military junta discovered after the Falkland War of 1982 with Britain. Otherwise, Japanese leaders of the prewar and wartime political, business and bureaucratic establishment who had initially been purged and imprisoned were quickly rehabilitated by the US occupation. Leftists and trade union leaders that the US occupation had initially liberated from jail were returned to jail. On the other end of the political spectrum, some of those implicated in Japan`s wartime government later served in high positions in post-war governments. Nobusuke Kishi, a prominent member of General Hideki Tojo`s wartime cabinet, after a brief jail sentence, became Japan`s prime minister a mere decade after the war. Some 100,000 US troops are still in East Asia, including 46,000 in Japan and 37,000 in South Korea.

The Iraq invasion has caused a split within the US political right between the conservatives and neo-conservatives. Conservatives have become increasingly vocal against the decision to invade once the initial Pavlovian conditioning reflex of rallying around the flag in times of war subsided. Neo-conservative hawks continue to insist that the invasion decision was right even if it had been based on the wrong reasons and flawed intelligence. Francis Fukuyama, famed conservative author of the End of History , in an essay titled "Shattered illusions" that first appeared in The Australian on June 29, 2004, since repeated in greater length in The National Interest, a US conservative publication, questioned "the confidence [of neo-conservatives] that the US could transform Iraq into a Western-style democracy and go on from there to democratize the broader Middle East". He put forth the argument that "these same neo-conservatives had spent much of the past generation warning about the dangers of ambitious social engineering and how social planners could never control behavior or deal with unanticipated consequences. If the US cannot eliminate poverty or raise test scores in Washington, DC, how in the world does it expect to bring democracy to a part of the world that has stubbornly resisted it and is virulently anti-American to boot?"

Fukuyama disputes Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Charles Krauthammer, who has noted how wrong people were after World War II in asserting that Japan could not democratize, echoing an argument made by Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, who has at several junctures suggested that pessimism about the prospects for a democratic Iraq betrays lack of respect for Arabs. Fukuyama expresses his disbelief that "democracies can be created anywhere and everywhere through simple political will". He pointed out that the overall record of US involvement in approximately 18 nation-building projects between its conquest of the Philippines in 1899 and the current occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq is not a pretty one. The cases of unambiguous success - Germany, Japan and South Korea - were all cases where US forces came and then stayed indefinitely. According to Fukuyama, in Germany and Japan, the US was not nation-building at all, but only re-legitimating societies that had very powerful states. In all of the other cases, the US either left nothing behind in terms of self-sustaining institutions, or else made things worse by creating a modern army and police but no lasting rule of law. Fukuyama asserts that "US dominance is clear cut only along two dimensions of national power, the cultural realm and the ability to fight and win intensive conventional wars. Americans have no particular taste or facility for nation-building; we want exit strategies rather than empires." Fukuyama`s insightful observation about the absence of US will for global nation-building is supported by recent reforms of US force structure.

Building an economic empire
US force structure is now designed to support an economic empire, not a political empire. The venue for building this economic empire is neo-liberal globalized trade, not military occupation. A geopolitical system has been quietly fashioned out of market fundamentalism to protect this economic empire, with the deceptive slogan of a crusade for democracy, the same way Winston Churchill tried to protect the British economic empire with bogus democracy and market capitalism after having sucked up all the capital from the colonies. The British Empire evolved during the age of waning monarchal absolutism. It was launched to enhance the authority of the Crown by shipping off political dissidents, such as the unruly separatist Scots, to build an empire for the Crown. It was a political empire that transformed into an economic empire only after the Industrial Revolution. The debates in parliament over colonialism were peppered with arguments that the colonies were fruits of monarchal chimera and bottomless pits of economic loss to be shouldered by the aristocracy to prevent them from challenging royal dominance. An economic empire is governed by civilian financial institutions, not military occupation. This explains why US overseas military engagement must be accompanied by quick, workable exit strategies. Wall Street support for the occupation of Iraq is near non-existent. The unexpectedly endless occupation, euphemistically referred to as "catastrophic success" has been Bush`s gravest tactic error.

Strategically, Bush also failed to recognize that the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a long-range policy to oppose pan-Arabism will incur the near term price of massive escalation of terrorism. A war against pan-Arabism is a war for terrorism, not on terrorism. Although few in Washington understand this, or are willing to say it if they understood, the invasion of Iraq unwittingly launched a war on pan-Arabism, which would bring about many battles with terrorism. The US may win some battles with terrorism, but the odds of it winning its "war on terrorism" have been reduced with its war on pan-Arabism. Even accepting Bush`s declaration that the US after the invasion of Iraq is safer, though still not safe, the price for this controversial claim is a US certainly not freer domestically.

Just as the Arab-Israel War of 1973 restructured the world economy by lifting the market price of oil to $30 a barrel, the invasion of Iraq has ushered in an era of oil above $50, changing the economic calculations of all participants in the global economy. With the US in essence owning most if not all of the world`s oil as long as oil is mainly denominated in dollars, a fiat currency the US can print at will with no immediate penalty that has assumed the status of the main reserve currency for trade based on geopolitical factors, a monetary phenomenon known as dollar hegemony, the impact of higher oil prices translates into a sudden expansion of the economy in dollar terms. The same amount of oil now is worth more dollars. Oil inflation, unlike wage inflation, is not a growth stimulant, draining consumer demand from the overcapacity that technological progress has presented to the economy. Oil profits stagnate for lack of investment opportunities because of low consumer demand. It is an inflation that drains money from consumers to the owners of oil who cannot recycle the money through consumption. It produces a shift of economic power from the oil consuming economies to the oil producing and ultimately to the dollar economy. Within the dollar economy (which extends beyond the political borders of the US) higher oil prices produce a shift of economic power from consumer to those who own oil reserves. It leads to a further step toward the top-heavy inverse pyramid structure of wealth distribution in the US economic empire. Unfortunately, inverse pyramids are inherently unstable.

Since September 11, it has been reported that Bush views himself as doing God`s work. So did Osama bin Laden after the quartering of US troops in Saudi Arabia, so did Khomeini in overthrowing the Shah. Where was it written that God approved of the global spread of democracy by US invasions? Was the moral authority of the Ten Commandments derived from popular vote? The fact is, God, assuming he exists, is on everyone`s side. Bush must know he is paying a high price globally for his unilateral policies and his administration`s hounding tone. Judging from overseas reports, Bush may now be the most unpopular US leader ever around the world. Anti-US sentiment has grown so intense that few foreign leaders can cooperate with Bush, on Iraq or any other issue, without taking a severe hit domestically in their own popularity.

The leader of the sole superpower in a world order of sovereign nations is by default also the leader of the world, who cannot lead without the support of all the people of the world. But if Bush should win a second term because of inept Democratic campaigning, or the absence of a clear alternative vision from the challenger, his mandate will be not merely to lead the US out of a false-start quagmire, but to lead the world out of a destructive path of geopolitical insanity, and join the ranks of great statesmen in history. There are those who unrealistically reject the US because they despair over the prospect of the US ever acting progressively as portrayed by its own high-minded self-image. The cruel reality is that the narrow national interests of the US often collide with the ideals of that image. There is much complaint, justified repeatedly by solid evidence, about the government lying to the public. Yet the reality is that US policies basically reflect US public opinion and at times unwittingly at the expense of US long-range national interests.

If US policies are frequently aggressively reactionary, it is because such disposition is part of the American character. Bush`s popularity with Americans rests on his authentic American character. Yet there are two sides to that character, made visible by the screen persona of John Wayne: the tough big guy who champions the defenseless little guys. The US has evolved into a superpower in the course of two World Wars and will remain one for the foreseeable future. As such it has earned the privileges associated with the instinctive prerogative of a tough big guy. But the complete American character requires the US to champion the defenseless little guys of the world. The US has a rendezvous with destiny as the forward-looking leader of the world rather the backward-wishing occupier of the world.


Henry C K Liu is chairman of the New York-based Liu Investment Group.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact [e-mail] for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
THE WORLD AT NIGHT:
[url]http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/images/earth_night.jpg
[/url]
[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Published on Thursday, September 16, 2004 by The Nation
It`s a Small Word After All
by Katrina vanden Heuvel

The International Ethical Collegium is an important new global voice. Its membership includes philosophers, diplomats, scientists, human rights activists and current and former Heads of State and governments, like ex-President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who want the global community to respond "intelligently and forcefully to the decisive challenges facing humankind." (The group has recently published an important Open Letter to George W. Bush and John Kerry, which is reprinted below.)

The Collegium sees three great challenges confronting the modern world--all of which require robust multilateral solutions: an ecological threat that includes global warming, the HIV/AIDS pandemic and a shortage of drinkable water in many of the world`s poorest regions;
a global economy in which deregulation has created massive disparities in income and a less secure world;
and, finally, a "crisis of thought and meaning" whereby humanity is thwarted by forces like "violence and intolerance [and] materialistic obsession."

In an interview this week, the International Collegium`s Secretary General Sacha Goldman talked about how sovereign states` own self-interest, threatened to undermine the hope of collective action to confront the world`s most immediate problems. "The US is losing its moral leadership," Goldman said, and that`s troubling because nations "don`t exist anymore on their own." Interdependence, as the Open Letter states, "is the new reality of this century--from global warming to global markets, global crime and global technology."

The Collegium was formed in the period leading up to the Sept. 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. The former President of Slovenia, Milan Kucan, and the former French Prime Minister, Michel Rocard, serve as its co-chairs. While the group has proposed solutions to specific transnational problems, the Collegium is most valuable for its ethics-based approach to problems like terrorism, poverty and environmental degradation.

The Collegium`s Open Letter is another sign that our upcoming election isn`t just about the American people. It`s about America`s future role in the world. Citing a "new era of interdependence," the Collegium`s members are asking Bush and Kerry to make clear their views about large issues like the prospects for democracy at the global level, and the possibility of formulating common interdependent values.

Sadly, however, the possibility of the global community working together to tackle the world`s vast inequities has been greatly diminished due to Bush`s hyper-militaristic approach to solving global problems, his illegal and un-necessary war in Iraq, and his contempt for the UN in particular and the international community in general. Worse, Bush`s policies have made the US more isolated--even hated--among former friends and foes alike. Recent polls conducted by GlobeScan and the University of Maryland show rising international mistrust of the US. Transatlantic Trends 2004 recently released a survey revealing that 76 percent of Europeans disapprove of Bush`s handling of foreign affairs, up 20 percent in the last two years.

"If the people of the world were going to participate in the US election, Kerry would win handily," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. While that fact might be exploited by the Bush campaign, the Collegium`s open letter should serve as a wake-up call to Americans that the US is stronger when it builds alliances. This assertion isn`t new, of course, but this fact has gotten lost in this stormy campaign in which Vietnam--and a debate about whose service was nobler--has eclipsed the debate about Iraq`s future, the genocide in Darfur, rising tensions in the Middle East, and Iran`s nuclear weapons programs.

For the first time since 1972, international affairs and national security are the top concern of the American electorate. In turning his back on the concept of multilateral action to solve common problems, however, Bush has made America less secure by turning internationalism on its head.

Bush and Kerry have an obligation to listen to the Collegium`s concerns and begin to address our greatest challenges in a serious and intelligent way. The Collegium`s letter to the candidates provides an opportunity for both candidates to take that step. Read it below.

*****

Collegium International

To The Candidates of the 2004 United States Presidential Election: President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry.
On November 2, one of you will be elected the next President of the United States. Because your great country is powerful far beyond its borders, billions of women and men who cannot vote will be profoundly affected by the choice made by the United States electorate.

We, the members of the International Ethical Collegium, write to you as citizens of the world who are in effect your constituents, but who have no vote. We ask that you consider your responsibility not just to the United States and its citizens but also to the world in this new era of interdependence, when sovereignty still circumscribes elections but can no longer circumscribe the consequences of elections.

Interdependence is evident in our world, from global warming to global markets, global crime, and global technology. However, more than anything else, terrorism has unveiled this fateful interdependence that defines our twenty-first century world. The atrocious attacks of September 11, 2001, like those that followed in Casablanca, Bali, Madrid and elsewhere, elicited the condemnation and sympathy of the entire world, even as they showed that no nation can any longer be secure or sovereign by itself.

We believe that the realities of interdependence require that the promise of its benefits be realized in affirmative ways through an architecture of interdependence that assures full equality in the distribution of economic, social and human resources. This condition requires the United States to recognize four crucial principles and needs, that define the central concerns of the Collegium:

* the need to establish democracy at a global level, where it can regulate and offer popular sovereignty over global anarchic forces that have escaped the sovereignty of individual nations, and at the same time secure diversity and equality among diverse democratic cultures and civilizations;
* the need to define the public goods of our common world, and to protect them as common heritage--including such crucial goods as access to knowledge and information and communication technologies, as well as to such non-renewable resources as drinking water and fossil fuels;
* the need to establish and formulate common interdependent values that can act as a bulwark against relativism and cynicism, even as they invite intercultural and intercivilizational dialogue and democratic deliberation;
* the need to define economic, social and cultural rights as intrinsic to and inseparable from political rights, extending across cultures and generations.

We believe that these needs represent the fundamental concerns of the world`s voiceless citizens who will have to live with the consequences of United States leadership. At the same time, we recognize that, as leaders of your great nation, you are agents of hope, capable of using the power given to you by the American people to the advantage of all humankind. We also know that since the United States can no longer find peace or justice without engaging cooperatively and multilaterally with the world and its international institutions, the world can have neither justice nor peace without the involvement of the United States.

In this spirit, although you have a legal obligation only to your countryís citizens, we would ask you to read this letter and offer the world`s citizens--your other invisible constituents--a considered response. You can be sure it will be met with a gratitude that recognizes that you have moved beyond the responsibilities of politics to embrace the responsibilities of ethical leadership and in doing so, have affirmed both the reality and the promise of interdependence.

Endorsed on behalf of the International Collegium members by:

Milan KUCAN , former President of Slovenia and Michel ROCARD, former Prime Minister of France, Co-chairs of the International Collegium
Andreas VAN AGT, former Prime Minister of the Netherlands;
Henri ATLAN, Bio-physicist and Philosopher, France;
Lloyd AXWORTHY, President of University of Winnipeg, former Foreign Minister of Canada;
Fernando Henrique CARDOSO, former President of Brazil;
Manuel CASTELLS, Sociologist, Spain;
Mireille DELMAS-MARTY, Professor of law, Sorbonne and College de France;
Ruth DREIFUSS, former President of the Swiss Confederation;
Gareth EVANS, President of the ICG, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Australia;
Malcolm FRASER, Chairman of the InterAction Council, former Prime Minister, Australia;
Bronislaw GEREMEK, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland;
Bacharuddin Jusuf HABIBIE, former President of Indonesia;
H.R.H. HASSAN BIN TALLAL, Jordan;
Vaclav HAVEL, former President of the Czech Republic;
Stephane HESSEL, Ambassador of France;
Alpha Oumar KONARE, former President of Mali;
Claudio MAGRIS, Author, Italy;
Edgar MORIN, Philosopher, France;
Sadako OGATA, President of Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA), former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Japan;
Jacques ROBIN, Philosopher, Founder of Transversales, France;
Mary ROBINSON, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, former President of Ireland;
Wolfgang SACHS, Economist, Germany;
Mohamed SAHNOUN, Ambassador of Algeria;
George VASSILIOU, former President of the Republic of Cyprus;
Richard VON WEIZSACKER, former President of the Federal Republic of Germany;
Huanming YANG, Director and Professor, Beijing Genomics Institute, China.

Copyright © 2004 The Nation

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 16, 2004
2 Americans and Briton Are Kidnapped by Rebels in Baghdad
By EDWARD WONG

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 16 — Insurgents kidnapped two American and one British engineer today in a brazen dawn raid on their home in one of Baghdad`s most affluent neighborhoods, underscoring the rapidly growing perils confronting foreign civilians in this war.

The United States Embassy identified the two Americans as Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong, who was also known as Jack. British officials in London declined to provide the name of the Briton until his family had been notified.

The three men work for GSCS, a construction company based in the United Arab Emirates that handles projects throughout the Persian Gulf for the American military, said an American embassy official and a company spokesman. The spokesman said the Americans had been in the country for six to seven months while the Briton had been shuttling in and out of Iraq for a year.

The incident took place without a struggle and without a shot being fired, neighbors said. The men were dragged from their homes in the Mansour neighborhood and put into what appeared to be a minivan. The kidnappers wore headscarves swathed around their faces and at least one was clothed entirely in black, though it was unclear whether they carried any guns, neighbors said.

"Come on, get in, get in the car," one of the kidnappers said, according to a 32-year-old neighbor who gave her name as Um Brahim.

The abductions echoed those of two 29-year-old Italian women working for a humanitarian group and two of their Iraqi co-workers, who were seized on Sept. 7. In both cases, the hostage-takers staged their raids in the heart of the capital. The fate of the two Italian women, Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, remains unknown, as does that of two French journalists seized in August, Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot.

Kidnappings are quickly forcing changes in the way foreigners live and work here, with security advisers scrambling to increase armed guards at private homes or move residents into hotels.

No group claimed responsibility for the latest kidnappings. More than 100 foreigners have been taken since April, including at least four Americans prior to today`s incident. While most of those abducted have been freed, some have been murdered by decapitation.

Most kidnappings are believed to be done by groups more keen on financial gain than ideological warfare, with a cottage industry of ransom rapidly growing across the country.

After the kidnappings this morning, a bomb exploded in the Bettaween neighborhood of downtown Baghdad, killing one person and wounding 10 others, a health ministry official said.

The American military said three marines died in combat in restive Anbar Province, west of the capital. That brought to at least 1,021 the number of American troops who have died since the start of the war.

The military also said it conducted an airstrike at 12:30 p.m. local time on a home in the volatile city of Falluja in which insurgents were storing weapons. The home was being used by the network of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant, the military said. This could not be independently verified, nor did the military release a death toll.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers said this evening that the country`s electricity grid had been fully restored after the sabotage of oil pipelines in the north on Tuesday left much of the country without power.

The three Westerners kidnapped in Baghdad apparently did not employ any armed guards at their two-story concrete home, according to several neighbors. The foreigners were clearly trying to maintain a low profile in the area. But as was the case with the Italian women, taking a soft approach to security ultimately left them vulnerable amid the rising hostilities.

"I feel so sorry for what happened to them," said Um Brahim as she stood in her driveway, next door to the victims` home. "They weren`t working for a military company. It was a construction company."

The raid took place around 6 a.m., when a blackout prompted two of the victims to open the black metal gate of their home to turn on a large generator sitting in a metal cage outside a four-foot wall. As the gate swung open, masked men rushed into the front yard and seized two foreigners, said Bahir Saleem, a student living on the block who said he spoke with several witnesses. The kidnappers then took the third man from the house.

Several neighbors said that up to two foreign Arabs usually lived in the house and were responsible for maintaining the generator and driving the Westerners, but that they had left just a day or two earlier.

One neighbor, Suha Muayed, said that a young boy emerged from the house across the street to help start the generator because his house also got electricity from it, but that kidnappers told the boy`s mother to get him back into the house.

Ms. Muayed said one of the Arab workers had told her that his Western employers had been receiving threats from insurgents. Neighbors said a Bulgarian company on the same street, which employed Kurdish militiamen as guards, moved out months ago after receiving similar threats.

The home the Westerners lived in is no different than any other on the street, a drab brown building in a middle- to upper-class area with no visible defenses. It is surrounded by a close-in four-foot wall that functions more as decoration than protection. Four white plastic chairs and a matching circular table sit on the tiny front lawn.

Neighbors said the foreigners were driven around in sport utility vehicles, which were parked outside the house. The kidnappers stole one of the cars, a Hyundai Galloper, neighbors said.

Soldiers with the First Cavalry Division arrived at the scene in three Humvees nearly seven hours after the kidnappings. They began questioning neighbors, long after reporters had already done so.

The Web site for GSCS says the company is involved in a wide range of projects in Iraq, from building and maintaining military bases to setting up communications networks. The American military uses the company for projects throughout the Persian Gulf region.

Prominently displayed on the Web site is the company`s motto: "There where you need us when it matters the most."

Michelle A. Wallin contributed reporting from Doha, Iraq.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

gehört noch zu #21624
Wird jeden Tag aktualisiert.
Vor drei Tagen führte Kerry noch.

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 223 Bush 311

http://www.electoral-vote.com/#news

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Dann gibt`s viel zu tun, wenn alle die wollten, schon bestraft werden.

September 17, 2004
WEAPONS INSPECTORS
Iraq Study Finds Desire for Arms, but Not Capacity
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 - A new report on Iraq`s illicit weapons program is expected to conclude that Saddam Hussein`s government had a clear intent to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if United Nations sanctions were lifted, government officials said Thursday. But, like earlier reports, it finds no evidence that Iraq had begun any large-scale program for weapons production by the time of the American invasion last year, the officials said.

The most specific evidence of an illicit weapons program, the officials said, has been uncovered in clandestine labs operated by the Iraqi Intelligence Service, which could have produced small quantities of lethal chemical and biological agents, though probably for use in assassinations, not to inflict mass casualties.

A draft report of nearly 1,500 pages that is circulating within the government essentially reaffirms the findings of an interim review completed 11 months ago, the officials said. But they said it added considerable detail, particularly on the question of Iraq`s intention to produce weapons if United Nations penalties were weakened or lifted, a judgment they said was based on documents signed by senior leaders and the debriefings of former Iraqi scientists and top officials, as well as other records.

The officials said the report would portray a more complicated and detailed picture, based on a far more extensive examination of suspected Iraqi weapons sites and records, as well as the debriefings. They said new information in the draft report based on on-site inspections of clandestine labs described the possibility that they were intended to provide small quantities of poisons.

A final version of the report, by Charles A. Duelfer, the top American weapons inspector in Iraq, is expected to be made public within the next several weeks.

In its current form, the report reaffirms previous interim findings that there is no evidence that Iraq possessed stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the American invasion in March 2003, the officials said. Prewar intelligence estimates that said Iraq actually possessed chemical and biological arsenals and was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program were cited by the Bush administration as the major rationale for war.

With the presidential election campaign in its final weeks, Republicans and Democrats are likely to seize on separate aspects of the report in an effort to score political points.

President Bush, who has said Iraq posed a threat to the world whether or not it possessed illicit weapons, will probably draw attention to the conclusion that Mr. Hussein sought to acquire illicit weapons. His political opponent, Senator John Kerry, who has accused Mr. Bush of misleading the country into war, will probably highlight the conclusion that Iraq had not begun a large-scale production program.

The separate disclosure on Wednesday that a classified National Intelligence Estimate completed in July portrayed a gloomier prognosis for Iraq than Mr. Bush has acknowledged was already fueling fresh debate about Iraq on the campaign trail.

The report on Iraq`s weapons is the result of some 15 months of work by the Iraq Survey Group, a military and intelligence team of more than 1,200 people that has inspected scores of sites, interviewed hundreds of former Iraqi scientists and officials and reviewed thousands of documents to try to reach a final judgment.

As described by the government officials, the findings of Mr. Duelfer`s report, in its current draft, are broadly consistent with the interim judgments, including the report issued in October 2003 by David A. Kay, the first top American inspector. When he stepped down in January, Mr. Kay said that "we were all wrong, probably" about whether Iraq had stockpiles of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. But he also said there was evidence that Iraq was developing "test amounts" of chemical weapons and researching how to produce ricin for use in weapons, and that it had made little progress toward restarting its nuclear program.

In trying to untangle the mystery of why no illicit weapons have been found in Iraq, Mr. Duelfer`s report is expected to look more closely at the issue of Iraq`s intentions. The document will stop short of offering a final judgment about Iraq`s weapons program, the officials said, and will not completely close the door on some possibilities, including the still unsubstantiated theory that illicit weapons may have been moved to other countries.

It will say that a vast cache of additional documents, including a recent find of 10,000 boxes, still needs to be translated and studied before any definitive conclusions can be reached about Iraq`s capabilities and intentions. The Iraq Survey Group will continue its work, the officials said, and may issue additional reports.

Meetings are scheduled next week to discuss what portions of the new report should be made public. A meeting led by Mr. Duelfer early this month in London presented versions of the draft to about two dozen British, Australian and American experts, the officials said. The final draft of the report remains to be completed, they added.

Some contents of the documents were described by government officials from several agencies who have seen all or part of the draft or been briefed on it. The officials spoke on condition that they not be identified by name, agency or, in some cases, by nationality, because the document remains classified and because its contents remain in draft form. The officials included some who said Iraq posed a threat that justified the American invasion, and some who said it did not.

On nuclear weapons, earlier American reports have described no evidence that Iraq had begun an active effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program that it was forced to abandon after the Persian Gulf war of 1991. The officials who described the draft report declined to provide details about its findings on nuclear issues.

Mr. Duelfer is still in Baghdad, and through a spokesman, he declined a request to be interviewed. In an interview late last month with The Los Angeles Times, Mr. Duelfer declined to discuss any findings in detail, but said his report would document the evidence collected to date and attempt to explain "the evolution and decision process" regarding Iraq`s illicit weapons program through 2003. Mr. Duelfer said in that interview that questions involving Iraq`s pursuit of so-called weapons of mass destruction "deserve something more than just a simple-minded archaeological exam of the W.M.D. program."

On Thursday, an intelligence official said the internal review under way was intended "to make as much of the document available to the public as possible, consistent with intelligence sources and methods." The official added, "That does take time."

Mr. Kay`s report last October cited "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service" that contained material suitable for research into chemical and biological weapons. Mr. Duelfer`s report, based on inspections of clandestine labs, will say the Iraqis were capable of using the labs to produce small quantities of lethal agents or to conduct very primitive research as a very early step toward broader weapons production.

Mr. Duelfer, who took over as the chief weapons inspector in January, said in testimony to Congress in March that Iraq did have dual-use facilities that could have produced biological or chemical weapons on short notice. He also noted that Iraq was working until March 2003 to build new facilities for the production of chemicals.

But officials who have seen Mr. Duelfer`s report say it describes no conclusive evidence that any effort was under way to use these facilities for weapons production.

Mr. Bush, who warned before the war that Iraq`s illicit weapons posed an urgent threat to the United States, now generally describes Iraq as having been a "gathering threat," a phrase he has used at least 11 times since Aug. 12. In a Sept. 9 campaign speech, Mr. Bush told voters in Ohio: "Remember, Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons; he could have passed that capability on to the enemy."

Mr. Kerry, by contrast, has focused on the fact that the illicit weapons have not been found in Iraq as evidence that Mr. Bush`s assertions lack credibility. "Everybody knows that just saying that there are weapons of mass destruction didn`t make them so," Mr. Kerry said in an Aug. 2 television interview.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Um weitere Kriege führen zu können, muß man in den USA die Zahl der Soldaten, der Reservisten und auch defr Nationalgarde betrachten, um festzustellen, dass die Zahl noch nicht mal die jetzigen Kriege ausreicht.

September 17, 2004
General Warns of a Looming Shortage of Specialists
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 - The chief of the Army Reserve warned on Thursday that at the current pace of operations in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army faced a serious risk of running out of crucial specialists in the Reserves who can be involuntarily called up for active duty.

The remarks by the officer, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, throw a spotlight on the military`s existing mobilization authority, under which Reserve and National Guard personnel can be summoned to active duty for no more than a total of 24 months, unless they volunteer to extend their tours.

As military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq continue with no end in sight, General Helmly said he was increasingly concerned that a growing number of soldiers with critical specialties that are contained mainly in the reservist ranks will exhaust their two-year stints, making it increasingly difficult to fill the yearlong tours of duty that have become standard. The skills include civil affairs and truck driving.

"The manning-the-force issue for me is the single most pressing function I worry about," General Helmly told reporters at a breakfast meeting.

Of the 205,000 members of the Army Reserve, about 43,500 are mobilized now; 22,600 of those are deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf.

General Helmly did not say when the Army might begin to run out of some reservists to call to active duty, but the average mobilization for members of the Reserves throughout the military has increased to 342 days this year from 156 days in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

General Helmly`s cautionary comments echoed a major finding of a report issued this week by the Government Accountability Office, formerly the General Accounting Office. That report concluded that if the Department of Defense`s mobilization policy restricted the time that reservists could be called to active duty, "it is possible that D.O.D. will run out of forces." General Helmly said he had not yet seen the report.

Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Georgian Republican who oversees the Armed Services subcommittee on personnel and requested the report, said in a telephone interview that the findings reinforced his fears that the Reserve and National Guard were being stretched too thin. Mr. Chambliss said the size of the active-duty Army should be increased by 20,000 soldiers to help ease the burden. Such a provision is now before a House-Senate conference committee.

The Army Reserve, reflecting similar efforts across the armed services, is taking several steps to avoid dire shortages, General Helmly said. It is streamlining headquarters units and eliminating other units that are not designed to deploy overseas.

At any given time, about 37,000 reservists are unable to deploy, because they are training, pregnant or facing disciplinary action. At the same time, the Reserve is increasing the number of people assigned to specialties in heavy demand.

In addition to the restructuring, General Helmly said he needed greater flexibility to manage his force and put it on a wartime footing. The Reserve, for instance, is seeking money from Congress to offer recruiting and retention bonuses, to help avert what many experts predict will be an exodus once part-time soldiers return home next year.

"I often feel constrained in my ability to influence the mechanics of how we recruit, retain, train and assign soldiers in the Army Reserve," the general said. "I need additional flexibility to ensure that our portion of the armed forces are managed such that we continue to be capable of withstanding the stresses associated with this war."

General Helmly said it had been only recently that the Reserve had moved away from a mindset of having part-time soldiers who trained one weekend a month and two weeks a year and who were rarely mobilized. The military is now counting on Reserve and National Guard soldiers to deploy up to 12 months every five years.

"We`re at war, this is a hard war and we, frankly, inside the Army Reserve have been not properly prepared for it," General Helmly said.

In response, the Army Reserve is moving to toughen its basic training for soldiers, in recognition that in insurgencies like the one in Iraq, there are no rear areas. Reserve truck drivers, for instance, now conduct live-fire, counterambush training. Reserve soldiers training in the United States now wear the same 50-pound body armor that troops strap on in Iraq.

"Driving that truck is one of the most hazardous damned occupations we have in Iraq," General Helmly said, "and the truck drivers and the M.P.`s are front-line troops these days."

The dangers are serious. At least 49 members of the Army Reserve have died in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, and General Helmly said 58 had died over all since the war against terrorism began in October 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan. The numbers killed and wounded are the highest for the Army Reserve since the Korean War of 1950-53, he said.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 16, 2004
Kerry accuses Bush of misleading troops on Iraq
By Joshua Chaffin in Las Vegas and Guy Dinmore in Washington

John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, told thousands of US National Guardsmen on Thursday that President George W. Bush had misled them about the deteriorating situation in Iraq, and accused the president of playing politics with national security and living "in a fantasy world of spin".

Mr Kerry, speaking at the National Guard Association`s annual convention, said that Mr Bush had failed to acknowledge mounting casualties and a litany of other problems dogging the mission in Iraq when he addressed the same group on Tuesday.

Mr Kerry also seized on a leaked report of the National Intelligence Estimate suggesting that US prospects in Iraq were worsening and were far bleaker than Mr Bush`s optimistic portrayal.

"Two days ago the president stood right where I`m standing and did not even acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. He did not tell you that with each day we`re seeing more chaos, more violence, more indiscriminate killings," Mr Kerry said. "I believe he failed the fundamental test of leadership. He failed to tell you the truth."

The classified NIE report was the first known overall assessment of Iraq for two years. It was approved in July by John McLaughlin, acting head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and initiated by George Tenet, his predecessor, who stepped down on July 9. According to the New York Times, the 50-page report sets out three scenarios, ranging from the most favourable tenuous stability in political, economic and security terms to the worst case, of civil war.

An official told the Financial Times it was also critical of the administration`s failure to anticipate the insurgency and looting that followed the collapse of Saddam Hussein`s regime.

"The Iraqi people continue to defy the predictions of talking heads, pundits, hand-wringers and nay-sayers," said a senior White House official. The authors of the NIE report did not belong to that category of pessimists but were outlining "worst-case scenarios" so that the administration would adopt the correct policies to avoid them, the official said. But he also said the views represented the "collective and learned" judgment of the intelligence community.

Last week the independent Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released a study that asserted that Iraq`s reconstruction efforts were largely stagnating or regressing, in part because of deteriorating security. Mr Kerry`s claims yesterday highlighted a sharp escalation this week in the candidates` clash on one of the dominant issues of this election. While Mr Kerry has repeatedly criticised Mr Bush for mismanaging the postwar occupation of Iraq, the Massachusetts senator had never until yesterday verged on calling the president a liar. "You deserve a president who will not play politics with national security, who will not ignore his own intelligence while living in a fantasy world of spin," Mr Kerry said.

Mr Bush insisted in a campaign speech in St. Cloud, Minnesota, that Iraq was "headed toward elections" and "freedom`s on the march". He pledged that US troops would return from Iraq and Afghanistan after getting them "on the path to stability and democracy as quickly as possible".

The president poked fun again at his rival, saying Mr Kerry had "probably had eight positions on Iraq".

The White House said progress was being made on all fronts of the president`s five-point plan for Iraq`s economic and political reconstruction and that elections would go ahead as scheduled in January. Security analysts in Washington disagree strongly on whether the US is losing the war in Iraq but they said the leaked intelligence estimate whose details are not known indicated that the overall assessment was negative.

Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said the administration should find a way to let the public know the findings of the NIE.

"The fact is we are losing ground," the senator said. "The path this administration is on is pushing us to the point where there may be no choice but to either send in more troops or get out. What we`re doing now isn`t working, and too many American soldiers are dying."

© Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2004.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 17, 2004
U.S. Says It Kills 60 Foreign Fighters in Iraq Strike
By REUTERS

Filed at 2:38 a.m. ET

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. forces launched fresh attacks in and near the restive Iraqi city of Falluja overnight, killing about 60 foreign fighters, the U.S. military said on Friday.

Secretary of State Colin Powell disputed U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan`s assertion that the U.S.-led war in Iraq was illegal and said in a newspaper interview officials recognized that Iraqi elections set for January could not proceed under the current security conditions.

Iraqi police said an air strike near the village of Qurush, between Baghdad and Falluja, had killed 20 and wounded 43. Reuters television images showed bloodied bodies, including women and children, on hospital beds in Falluja.

A U.S. military statement said U.S. warplanes mounted a ``precision strike`` on Thursday night near Falluja on a compound used by militants loyal to Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a man Washington says is allied to Osama bin Laden`s al Qaeda network.

It said some 90 foreign fighters were at the compound near Qurush at the time of the attack, which took place at 9:45 p.m. (1:45 p.m. EDT) on Thursday. The Americans identified the village as Qaryat ar Rufush.

Three buildings were destroyed and the foreign fighters who escaped the strike fled into the village, the statement said.

U.S. warplanes launched a second ``precision strike`` early on Friday, destroying a compound in south central Falluja which the U.S. military said was used by Zarqawi militants.

There was no word of casualties from the second strike but the U.S. military said the militants targeted were believed to be linked with recent bombings that have killed scores.

U.S. forces have carried out about a dozen air strikes over recent weeks on Falluja, a Sunni stronghold west of Baghdad which has fallen into rebel hands. The offensive is part of a push to retake rebel pockets ahead of elections set for January.

Three U.S. marines were killed in separate incidents in al-Anbar province, which includes the rebel-held cities of Falluja and Ramadi, the U.S. military said. At least 777 U.S. troops have been killed in action in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion last year.

POWELL REBUTTAL

In an interview published on Friday, Powell said Annan`s comment on the legality of the war was ``not a very useful statement to make at this point.``

``What does it gain anyone? We should all be gathering around the idea of helping the Iraqis, not getting into these kinds of side issues,`` Powell said in the Washington Times.

Asked whether the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq broke international law, Annan had said on Wednesday: ``Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. Charter from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.``

The United Nations later played down Annan`s statement, which spokesman Fred Eckhard said Annan felt was no different from what he had been saying for more than a year.

Powell said U.S. diplomats and military commanders recognized that next year`s vote could not go ahead under the current security conditions in certain areas of the country but predicted it would improve.

``We don`t expect the security situation as it exists now on the 16th of September to be the security situation`` on the day Iraqis vote, Powell told the newspaper.

``We know andknows that these areas have to a brought back firmly under government control.``

Holding polls are crucial to U.S. plans to establish a government able to run its own security without large numbers of U.S. troops and stabilize the oil-rich nation.

In the latest kidnapping of foreigners in Iraq, gunmen abducted two Americans and a Briton from a house in an affluent central Baghdad neighborhood on Thursday.

Militants posted video footage on the Internet purportedly showing the killing of three Arabic-speaking truckers, who were also shown warning others against working with U.S. forces in Iraq. In northern Iraq, gunmen kidnapped a Syrian truck driver.

Copyright 2004 Reuters Ltd.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 17, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
This Is Bush`s Vietnam
By BOB HERBERT

ARLINGTON, Va.

The rows of simple white headstones in the broad expanses of brilliant green lawns are scrupulously arranged, and they seem to go on and on, endlessly, in every direction.

It was impossible not to be moved. A soft September wind was the only sound. Beyond that was just the silence of history, and the collective memory of the lives lost in its service.

Nearly 300,000 people are buried at Arlington National Cemetery, which is just across the Potomac from Washington. On Tuesday morning I visited the grave of Air Force Second Lt. Richard VandeGeer. The headstone tells us, as simply as possible, that he went to Vietnam, that he was born Jan. 11, 1948, and died May 15, 1975, and that he was awarded the Purple Heart.

His mother, Diana VandeGeer, who is 75 now and lives in Florida, tells us that he loved to play soldier as a child, that he was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and that she longs for him still. He would be 56 now, but to his mother he is forever a tall and handsome 27.

Richard VandeGeer was not the last American serviceman to die in the Vietnam War, but he was close enough. He was part of the last group of Americans killed, and his name was the last of the more than 58,000 to be listed on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. As I stood at his grave, I couldn`t help but wonder how long it will take us to get to the last American combat death in Iraq.

Lieutenant VandeGeer died heroically. He was the pilot of a CH-53A transport helicopter that was part of an effort to rescue crew members of the Mayaguez, an American merchant ship that was captured by the Khmer Rouge off the coast of Cambodia on May 12, 1975. The helicopter was shot down and half of the 26 men aboard, including Lieutenant VandeGeer, perished.

(It was later learned that the crew of the Mayaguez had already been released.)

The failed rescue operation, considered the last combat activity of the Vietnam War, came four years after John Kerry`s famous question, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Although he died bravely, Lieutenant VandeGeer`s death was as senseless as those of the 58,000 who died before him in the fool`s errand known as Vietnam. His remains were not recovered for 20 years - not until a joint operation by American and Cambodian authorities located the underwater helicopter wreckage in 1995. Positive identification, using the most advanced DNA technology, took another four years. Lieutenant VandeGeer was buried at Arlington in a private ceremony in 2000.

The Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation put me in touch with the lieutenant`s family. "I`m still angry that my son is gone," said Mrs. VandeGeer, who is divorced and lives alone in Cocoa Beach. "I`m his mother. I think about him every day."

She said that while she will always be proud of her son, she believes he "died for nothing."

Lieutenant VandeGeer`s sister, Michelle, told me she can`t think about her brother without recalling that the last time she saw him was on her wedding day, in May 1974. "He looked so handsome and confident," she said. "He wanted to change the world."

Wars are all about chaos and catastrophes, death and suffering, and lifelong grief, which is why you should go to war only when it`s absolutely unavoidable. Wars tear families apart as surely as they tear apart the flesh of those killed and wounded. Since we learned nothing from Vietnam, we are doomed to repeat its agony, this time in horrifying slow-motion in Iraq.

Three more marines were killed yesterday in Iraq. Kidnappings are commonplace. The insurgency is growing and becoming more sophisticated, which means more deadly. Ordinary Iraqis are becoming ever more enraged at the U.S.

When the newscaster David Brinkley, appalled by the carnage in Vietnam, asked Lyndon Johnson why he didn`t just bring the troops home, Johnson replied, "I`m not going to be the first American president to lose a war."

George W. Bush is now trapped as tightly in Iraq as Johnson was in Vietnam. The war is going badly. The president`s own intelligence estimates are pessimistic. There is no plan to actually win the war in Iraq, and no willingness to concede defeat.

I wonder who the last man or woman will be to die for this colossal mistake.

Paul Krugman is on vacation.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Iraqis want elections - and foreign troops to leave now

Yes, the invasion was illegal. But war crimes are still being committed
Jonathan Steele
Friday September 17, 2004

The Guardian
Kofi Annan`s declaration that the US and British attack on Iraq was illegal will renew the pressure on Tony Blair over the war. The prime minister`s claim that he went to war partly to defend the United Nations` authority in the face of Saddam Hussein`s non-compliance with security council resolutions now lies in tatters - along with his other justifications.

When the UN secretary-general himself says that it was Washington and London who were not complying with international law, Bush and Blair should now clearly acknowledge they did wrong.

But it is not just the launch of the war which was illegal. Illegality continues today. Take the US helicopter attack on a crowd in Haifa Street, Baghdad, last Sunday, which killed 13 people and injured dozens (including a Guardian reporter). It was almost certainly a war crime.

The pilots` unarmed victims came into the street after insurgents had destroyed an American Bradley fighting vehicle, a cross between a tank and an armoured personnel carrier. The soldiers inside it were quickly rescued by comrades and withdrew. By the time the jubilant crowd gathered to gawp at the Bradley`s smouldering remains, military activity had ceased.

Why then did the pilots shoot? The official version is that ground fire was being aimed at them. Even if true, questions remain. Why didn`t the helicopters fly off to safety? Fire need not be answered, if there is a more sensible way of avoiding being hit, especially when the ground troops the helicopters were supposedly protecting had already left the scene. Secondly, did the pilots properly assess the risk to civilians from a disproportionate response? From the casualties caused, the evidence strongly suggests they did not.

The assumption has to be that the pilots` motive was revenge. If so, the incident would not be unique. In case after case, the behaviour of US forces in Iraq appears to be degenerating into vindictive killing, decided not only at the tactical but also at command level.

Lieutenant-general James Conway, who commanded US marines at Falluja in April, recently revealed he was unhappy with a higher-ranking decision to assault the town after four American contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated. He was against "attacking out of revenge", he now says.

His description of the offensive`s primary purpose is surely right, although - as with the Haifa Street massacre - no war crimes trial is likely. Belatedly, and usually only after media exposure, abuses in US- and UK-run military prisons in Iraq have led to court proceedings. The bigger issue of crimes against civilians perpetrated in the air above Iraqi cities and from tanks and other vehicles is still taboo.

Armies which resort to revenge are usually ones that are losing. Within the Sunni region, Ramadi, Falluja and Samarra have become no-go areas. The same is true of the Shia holy cities of Kerbala and Najaf. It is not that US forces are impotent. With their overwhelming fire-power they are unbeatable. What is changing is the growth of resistance, both military and political, and the ebbing-away of US legitimacy. Increasing numbers of influential Iraqis tell US commanders to keep out of populated areas and withdraw to barracks, as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani did most notably in Najaf.

The US army`s excessive use of force is a key factor. But there is also a growing sense among Iraqis that the occupation is causing more problems than it is solving. Polls have shown for several months that the number of Iraqis who say they would feel safer if foreign troops left immediately exceeds the number who would feel less safe. They want Iraqi security forces to take over.

After comprehensive analysis of the main polls, plus its own interviews with individuals and focus groups, the centre-right Washington thinktank the Centre for Strategic and International Studies recently concluded: "Iraqis have little confidence in US and other international forces _ Iraqis generally dislike the continued presence of US-led forces in their country; many consider the occupation to be on-going despite the June 28 handover of sovereignty."

The CSIS also found it is too late for the US to turn things round with quick improvements to the botched reconstruction process or by funding a massive job-creation programme. "The occupation will not be judged by the sum of its consequences, but rather as occupation. Put simply, Iraqi pride in national sovereignty is more deeply rooted than the US anticipated," its study says.

Popular feelings are percolating upwards and influencing the forthcoming Iraqi election campaign. The CSIS reports that "it is highly likely that the single unifying theme espoused by Iraq`s politicians will be to invite the US to leave Iraq once there is an elected Iraqi government in place".

This being so, those in the US who see Iraq as a strategic asset and covet long-term bases will probably try to postpone the January elections. Noises are already being made that insecurity will prevent them being free. Ayad Allawi, the US-appointed prime minister, and other former exiles who returned to Iraq with no political base, have an incentive to delay the poll so as to perpetuate their power.

Some analysts are making gloomy predictions that Iraq will split apart if US troops pull out. Supporters of the fragmentation scenario include long-time backers of Kurdish independence, and their views are coloured by that. Others claim to see a risk of violent clashes between Sunnis and Shias and even civil war.

These forecasts are probably too pessimistic, but in the short term the greater danger is that the US will use the pretext of protecting the elections to try to "recapture" cities it has lost. This would be a disastrous mistake.

The UN election plan treats Iraq as a single constituency and makes it unnecessary for candidates or parties to campaign everywhere. Even if there were no violence, Shia parties - such as Da`wa, Sciri, and Moqtada al-Sadr`s people (if they decide to run) - would not campaign in Sunni cities. In reverse, the same goes for the largely Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.

So the fact that Falluja, Ramadi and other Sunni towns are virtually out of bounds to outsiders is not an argument for cancelling the elections there. Cancellation would send a terrible signal, implying that Allawi and his US backers were trying to disenfranchise the Sunni and favour Shias. This would be more likely to provoke sectarian conflict than any other measure.

Iraqis of almost all persuasions want elections, and the claim that the resistance is trying to block them has no evidence to back it. Most Iraqis, including the militias, see the elections as the best key to ending the occupation and getting the US to leave. Their views should be respected.

< A HREF="[e-mail]">[e-mail]< / A >
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Bush failed to plan for after war, report says
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

17 September 2004

A deeply pessimistic US intelligence assessment of the situation in Iraq, warning of possible civil war, has cast further doubts over the Bush administration`s attempt to rebuild the country, and gave the Democratic challenger John Kerry a new opportunity to move the Iraq crisis to the centre of the Presidential election battle.

In a speech to the National Guard Association in Las Vegas yesterday, the Massachusetts senator avoided the controversy over charges that the President shirked his duties during his service in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1973.

Instead, Mr Kerry accused George Bush of "playing politics with national security" over Iraq, of glossing over the problems there and "living in a fantasy world of spin". He lambasted the White House for the lack of prewar planning which was now forcing National Guardsmen and reservists to serve excessively long tours of duty there, in what amounted to a backdoor draft.

The acute difficulties in Iraq are highlighted in the National Intelligence Estimate, drawn up in July and representing the distilled wisdom of the entire US intelligence community.

It sketches out three scenarios for Iraq. The grimmest is a descent into civil war; the second is understood to be a continuation of the current disorder. Even the most favourable of the three holds out no better prospect than a precarious stability, under constant threat.

The conclusions of the NIE, first reported by The New York Times yesterday, contrast sharply with the doggedly upbeat tone of Mr Bush on the campaign trail. At every turn, the President insists Iraq is firmly on the road to peace and democracy, deriding Mr Kerry for vacillation and "flip-flopping" on the issue.

Such intelligence studies have a chequered history - not least the previous NIE on Iraq in October 2002, when it grossly exaggerated the weapons threat posed by Saddam Hussein. But this new assessment reflects the view of most nonpartisan Iraq specialists here, that the insurgency is becoming ever more sophisticated and more dangerous. The view is widespread that the war in Iraq is politically, if not militarily, close to unwinnable for the US.

"Is there a threat of civil war? - Yes," Sean McCormick, the National Security Council spokesman admitted to reporters yesterday. But, he argued, many of the worst scenarios previously predicted for Iraq, including famine and civil war, had not come to pass.

The bleak prognosis by US intelligence comes days after the administration asked Congress to approve a shift of $3.6bn (£2bn) of the $18bn earmarked for reconstruction in Iraq into short-term spending, to speed the training Iraqi defence forces, boost security and protect the country`s oil industry.

Even Republicans on Capitol Hill are enraged at how less than $1bn of the promised $18bn has been spent. Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, described the delays as "exasperating". Nebraska`s Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, was even blunter. "It`s beyond pitiful, it`s beyond embarrassing, it is now in the zone of dangerous," he said.

More fundamentally, the re-allocation of funds is being seen as a tacit admission by the administration that many of its long-term ambitions for Iraq, so dear to the neo-conservatives who argued most strongly for the 2003 invasion, are now a dead letter.

Thus far - despite Mr Kerry`s fierce criticism, not to mention the growing chaos and bloodshed on the ground - Iraq has been a peripheral issue in the campaign. To the frustration of Democrats, Mr Bush has succeeded in depicting Iraq as just a segment of the "war on terror", an area where he scores far better in opinion polls than his Democratic opponent.

At the Republican convention in New York, the turmoil was barely mentioned. Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, continues to make speeches implying Saddam had links with al-Qa`ida, and by extension with the 11 September terror attacks.

But Democrats are determined to turn the tactic against Mr Bush. "The President has frequently described Iraq as the central front in the war on terror," said Senator Joe Biden, senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee and widely tipped as a possible Secretary of State should Mr Kerry win on 2 November. "By that measure the war on terror is in trouble."


17 September 2004 09:19


©2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
Informed Comment
[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Thoughts on the Middle East, History,and Religion
[/TABLE][Table align=left]

[/TABLE]

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Friday, September 17, 2004

Sharon Repudiates the Road Map

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in remarks on Wednesday repudiated the American-sponsored "road map" to a peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Sharon insists on acting unilaterally, intends to occupy the Palestinian population indefinitely, and intends to permanently incorporate much of the West Bank, conquered in 1967, into Israel, while leaving the Palestinian population stateless. They lack so much as a passport or a country, many of their children are hungry, unemployment is astronomical, and their lives are ruined by a dense network of Israeli roads and checkpoints that make it difficult even just to go to the hospital.

I am sure that most Americans are not even aware that Palestinians live under Israeli military occupation and that every day Palestinian territory shrinks as it is stolen by fanatical Israeli colonists. These fanatics do not differ in any obvious way from the French colonists in Algeria, which the French also proclaimed "French soil." But colonialism is just another word for grand larceny. (Most Americans would be appalled if the United States suddenly chased all the Iraqis out of Baghdad and brought in Americans to permanently take over their apartments and other property, instead. But that is an exact analogy for how the Israelis are behaving.)

There are several examples in the contemporary world of land-hungry states attempting to incorporate neighbors` territory into their own. You have the Chinese in Tibet, the Moroccans in the Western Sahara . . . and, well it is actually hard to think of a lot of recent such engorgements. But in each of these cases, the conquering state wants the people along with the territory. Tibetans have Chinese passports, and Saharans have Moroccan ones. But Israel isn`t giving the Palestinians Israeli passports. It just wants their land, not them, and sets things up to try to force the Palestinians out of their homeland. It is an ongoing injustice, with Israeli colonization creeping forward. Even if Sharon does remove the small number (8000) of Israeli colonists from Gaza, he intends to resettle them in the West Bank, which is nicer real estate.

Charles Smith`s Guest Editorial on Sept. 1 is worth revisiting in the light of these recent admissions.

posted by Juan @ [url9/17/2004 06:00:18 AM]http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109531639670576773[/url]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Mal wieder ein guter Spiegel-Online Artikel. Der schmutzige Wahlkampf.

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 17. September 2004, 9:16
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,318400,00.html

Dubiose Bush-Akten

Falsch, aber wahr

Von Marc Pitzke, New York

Die Dokumente sollten Präsident Bush endgültig als Drückeberger entlarven. Doch nun verdichten sich Indizien, dass sie so stümperhaft gefälscht wurden wie einstmals die Hitler-Tagebücher. Der Skandal um die vom US-Sender CBS präsentierten Nationalgarde-Akten lässt den Wahlkampf zur Farce verkommen. In Vergessenheit gerät, dass die Vorwürfe im Kern bestehen bleiben.

So ist das mit lebenden Legenden: Verweilen sie zu lange im Rampenlicht, dörren sie aus. Dan Rather, 72, hätte es ahnen können. Der runzlige Star-Anchor des TV-Networks CBS hat seine besten Zeiten hinter sich. Sein Bericht von der Ermordung John F. Kennedys, seine Wortduelle mit Richard Nixon, sein Treffen mit Fidel Castro: Jahre zurück liegt das ja alles. Rathers letzter Coup war ein Interview mit Saddam Hussein im März 2003.

Doch auf diese Weise hätte es nicht enden sollen. Ein paar Blatt Papier, plump gefälscht, billig kopiert, schnell gefaxt. So banal geht sie zu Grunde, die Karriere einer journalistischen Institution. Zugleich beweist das Akten-Fiasko um US-Präsident George W. Bushs Vietnam-Ersatzdienst aber noch mehr: Der Wahlkampf ist vollends zur bitterbösen Farce verkommen.

Es klang wie der "Scoop" des Jahres: Authentische Dokumente, die belegen, was seit Jahren gemunkelt wird und seit Wochen wieder ein heißes Wahlkampfthema ist - Bush habe in den siebziger Jahren einen Großteil seines Dienstes in der US-Nationalgarde, der ihn vor dem Vietnamkrieg bewahrt hatte, geschwänzt.

Schlampig gefälscht - doch korrekt

Die vier getippten Seiten, die Rather vorige Woche im CBS-Nachrichtenmagazin "60 Minutes" präsentierte, schienen die Lücken der Geschichte zu stopfen. Datiert waren die offenbar diktierten Memos zwischen 4. Mai 1972 und 18. August 1973, unterschrieben von einem "Oberst Jerry Killian", Bushs damaligen, 1984 verstorbenen Schwadronskommandeur. Er habe Bushs Suspendierung befohlen, weil der die Pilotenprüfung versäumt habe, stand auf einem. Von oben werde darauf gedrängt, die Sache "zu vertuschen", auf einem anderen. Bush habe angefragt, wie er "um den Drill herumkommen" könnte, besagte ein weiteres.

Die Papiere seien von unabhängigen Experten für echt erklärt worden, triumphierte CBS zur besten Sendezeit: "Dies ist genau das, was das Weiße Haus zu vermeiden versucht hat."

Oder auch nicht. Denn inzwischen steht so gut wie fest, dass die CBS-Memos gefälscht sind - und schlampig obendrein. "Ich weiß, dass ich sie nicht getippt habe", sagt Killians Sekretärin Marian Carr Knox, 86, fügt jedoch schnell sybillinisch hinzu: "Aber die Informationen darin sind korrekt." Ja, sie erinnere sich genau, für Killian ähnlich lautende Memos zu Papier gebracht zu haben: "Dies sind absolut seine Gefühle." Vielleicht habe jemand die Originale gesehen und versucht, sie "zu reproduzieren". Kurzum: Die Papiere seien falsch, aber wahr.

Suspekte Quelle

Es wären Reproduktionen von einer Stümperhaftigkeit, die an das "Stern"-Debakel mit den "Hitler-Tagebüchern" erinnert. Der Schriftsatz entspricht der Standardschrift "Times New Roman" im Software-Programm Microsoft Word, die die elektrischen IBM-Schreibmaschinen der siebziger Jahre nicht kannten. Word wurde 1983 eingeführt.

Gefälschte Bush Akte: "Times New Roman" gab es in den siebziger Jahren noch gar nicht
"Ich habe in meinen Mustern nichts Ähnliches gefunden", sagt der Forensik-Spezialist Philip Bouffard, dessen Datenbank 3000 alte Schriften enthält. Auch das hoch gestellte "th" in Zahlenangaben wie "111th Fighter Inceptor Squadron" existierte damals noch nicht. Unregelmäßige Abstände zwischen den Buchstaben und elegant geschwungene Kommata deuten ebenfalls auf einen PC hin. Fachausdrücke wie "billets" (Dienstabschnitte), sagt Knox überdies, seien unüblich gewesen.

Auch die Quelle der Unterlagen scheint suspekt. Alle Spuren deuten auf Bill Burkett, einen Ex-Nationalgardisten. Burkett - von einem anonymen CBS-Mitarbeiter als Absender der gefaxten "Killian-Memos" identifiziert - will schon 1997 gesehen haben, wie Mitarbeiter Bushs Akten über dessen Wehrdienst vernichtet hätten. Burkett ist aber auch für einen bizarren Gerichtsstreit mit der Garde sowie andere Vorwürfe gegen Bush bekannt, die sich bisher nicht nachweisen ließen. Den vor dem Tor seiner Ranch nach Auskunft harrenden Journalisten riet Burkett ohne weiteren Kommentar, nach Hause zu gehen.

Nach langem Mauern hat so jetzt auch CBS "legitime Fragen" an der Authentizität der Dokumente eingeräumt. Während sich nun Anwälte und Schriftexperten über "Memo-Gate" die Köpfe zerbrechen und Dan Rather um seine Ehre kämpft, darf sich das Weiße Haus freuen: In der Debatte um die Echtheit der physischen Akten ging die Debatte um deren bisher nicht widerlegten Inhalt verschütt. Es ist eine Auseinandersetzung, in der Bush-Rivale John Kerry - der verzweifelt versucht, sich mit Sachfragen zu profilieren - ebenfalls unterzugehen droht.

"Orchestrierte Attacken"

"In der hektischen Diskussion der letzten Woche", beharrt CBS, "ist der grundlegende Inhalt des Berichts von `60 Minutes` nicht substanziell angefochten worden." Sprich: die Erkenntnis, Bush habe "während seines Militärdienstes Sonderbehandlung genossen". Doch statt diese Frage weiter zu vertiefen, berichten die meisten US-Medien seit Tagen rund um die Uhr über den Fälschungsskandal.

Nicht zuletzt auch deshalb, weil die Republikaner und das Weiße Haus den Fälschungsskandal freudig anfachen - um ihn Kerry anzuhängen. 39 Kongressabgeordnete forderten von CBS jetzt einen Widerruf: Der Sender habe sich zum Handwerk "einer Kampagne zur Diffamierung des Präsidenten" machen lassen. Der Abgeordnete Christopher Cox ruft nach Ermittlungen durch das Repräsentantenhaus. Bush-Sprecher Scott McClellan spricht von "orchestrierten Attacken der Demokraten".

Es ist ein klassisches Beispiel für das Paradox dieses Wahlkampfes: Alle Energie geht in die Nebenkriegsschauplätze der Vergangenheit; die ausschlaggebenden Fragen der Gegenwart bleiben immer häufiger auf der Strecke. Schuld daran haben nicht nur die Kandidaten selbst, die sich allein an ihrer Vergangenheit zu definieren suchen (Bush an 9/11, Kerry an Vietnam), sondern auch die gierigen Medien.

Fragen aus dem Fernsehquiz

Bushs Gardistenflucht, Kerrys Mekong-Dilemma, Koksgeschnupfe auf Camp David, Teresa Heinz Kerrys schillernde Jugend: "Die Medien scheinen sich nach der schmutzigen Vergangenheit zu verzehren", klagt Howard Kurtz, Medienkritiker der "Washington Post". "Ist der Presse nichts mehr heilig?"

Die "Killian-Memos" sind nicht der erste Fall, dass US-Reporter - weitgehend ausgeschlossen von direktem Zugang zu den Kandidaten - in dieser Schlammschlacht von Wahlkampf dubiosen Informationen aufsitzen oder sie ungeprüft wiederholen - unter dem Vorwand der "Berichterstattung". Kitty Kelleys halbgare Klatsch-Biografie der Bush-Dynastie wurde hier zwar weithin als Hörensagen verrissen - und trotzdem tingelte die Autorin als begehrter Gast von einem TV-Interview zum nächsten, wo sie alles noch mal wiederholen durfte.

Auch für die teils widerlegten Angriffe der Bush-nahen Veteranengruppe "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" auf Kerry fungierten die US-Medien - vor allem die TV-Sender, die die "Swift-Boat"-Spots in die Endlosschleife legten - als "eine gigantische Schallkammer" (Kurtz). Damals protestierten die Republikaner nicht.

Der Reporter als Story

"Hier haben wir einen Wahlkampf, in dem es um Terrorismus und Krieg gehen sollte", schimpft der ehemalige CNN-Anchor Frank Sesno. Stattdessen hätten sich die Kampagnen in Fragen verstrickt, die allenfalls in ein Fernsehquiz gehörten. "Ich glaube nicht, dass die Medien ein schlechtes Gewissen haben, Gerüchte und unbelegte Behauptungen zu veröffentlichen", kritisiert auch der Politologe Larry Sabato.

Das abenteuerlichste Beispiel dafür fand sich gestern ausgerechnet in der "New York Times". Da berichtete Kolumnistin Maureen Dowd von "Spekulationen", Bush-Chefstratege Karl Rove habe die Fälschungen persönlich eingefädelt, als "diabolischen Präemptiv-Schlag", um vom wahren Thema abzulenken - Bushs Verhalten. Schließlich soll Rove mit einem ähnlich perfiden Zweck ja auch 1986 schon mal sein eigenes Büro verwanzt haben. Sicher, Dowd nennt die Gerüchte artig eine "paranoide Phantasie". Doch die Idee steht nun offiziell im Raum, mit dem Gütesiegel der "New York Times" geadelt.

Dan Rather hat sich derweil damit abgefunden, dass er selbst zur Story geworden ist. "Hier geht es nicht um mich", sagt er zwar, fügt aber resigniert hinzu: "Ich sehe ein, dass jene, die die Geschichte diskreditieren, versuchen mich zum Thema zu machen. Ich akzeptiere das."

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Umfrage 1 vom Pew Research, ein anerkanntes Institut.

Kerry Support Rebounds, Race Again Even
Strong Interest in Debates

Released: September 16, 2004


Voter opinion in the presidential race has seesawed dramatically in the first two weeks of September. Following a successful nominating convention, George W. Bush broke open a deadlocked contest and jumped out to a big lead over John Kerry. However, polling this past week finds that Bush`s edge over his Democratic rival has eroded. Reflecting this new volatility in the race, the size of the swing vote has increased slightly since the summer, rather than contracting as it typically does as the election approaches.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
The latest national survey of 1,972 registered voters by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted in two waves over a seven-day period, finds that the president`s large margin of support in the initial period (Sept. 8-10) dissipated in the polling conducted Sept. 11-14. Among all registered voters Bush initially led Kerry by 52%-40%. However, the second wave of interviewing shows the race even among registered voters, at 46%-46%. When the sample is narrowed to likely voters, Bush holds a statistically insignificant lead of 47%-46% in the second wave, down from a huge 54%-38% advantage he held in the first wave of interviews.

The shifting voter sentiment observed in this poll reflects a number of cross currents in public opinion. Hard-hitting attacks against the Democratic challenger throughout August and during the Republican convention took a heavy toll on Kerry`s personal image. Kerry`s positive support waned, fewer voters expressed confidence in him to deal with major issues, and perceptions of him as a `flip-flopper` rose noticeably.

In contrast, Bush improved his personal image in early September and erased or reduced his rival`s advantage on most issues. At the same time, however, Bush showed continued vulnerability on Iraq and the economy. A plurality of the public still disapproved of the president`s stewardship of the economy. While opinion of his handling of Iraq has inched up since the early summer, nearly six-in-ten voters (58%) say it is not clear what Bush will do about Iraq if he is reelected.

As more time has passed since the Aug. 30-Sept.2 Republican convention, Kerry`s unfavorable ratings have receded somewhat. And while Kerry no longer holds the big advantage he once had on most issues, his standing relative to Bush has rebounded slightly on the economy.

The second wave of polling also finds less acceptance of Republican criticism of the Democratic candidate. Fewer voters agree with the statement "John Kerry changes his mind too much." Fewer think the chances of terrorism would increase if Kerry is elected. In addition, a substantial majority of voters (66%) believe Vice President Cheney went too far when he suggested recently that risk of terrorism would increase if voters "make the wrong choice." That opinion remained steady through the polling period.

Yet in several other areas, the Democratic contender has not recaptured the ground he lost in August. A majority of the electorate (52%) believes Bush can best handle the situation in Iraq, while 40% choose Kerry. And Bush`s advantage over Kerry on dealing with the threat of terrorism, which widened considerably in the Sept. 8-10 survey, remains undiminished.

Bush`s biggest personal asset is his strong leadership image. By roughly two-to-one (58%-30%) voters say the phrase "strong leader" describes Bush rather than Kerry, and that view remained steady through the polling period. Moreover, Bush`s supporters cite his leadership abilities as a basis of their vote far more often than did President Clinton`s supporters during his reelection campaign in 1996, or former President Bush`s backers four years earlier.

The firm commitment of the president`s constituency also stands out. George W. Bush registers a higher proportion of strong support than any other candidate in elections dating back to 1988. In contrast, Kerry`s supporters have lost some zeal since early August, and more continue to say they are voting against Bush rather than for Kerry.

Kerry`s slippage in the post-convention polls also has undermined confidence in his chances of victory, including among Democrats. The percentage of all voters anticipating a Bush victory climbed from 44% in August to 60% in September, a figure that held steady through the polling period. Among Democrats, the number predicting a Kerry victory fell from 66% in August to 43% this month.

The tightening race underscores the stakes for both candidates in the upcoming presidential debates. The public remains highly engaged in the campaign: 71% say they have given a lot of thought to the election and 40% are following election news very closely, up from just 22% four years ago.

This increased attentiveness is carrying over into heightened interest in the debates. Six-in-ten voters (61%) say it is very likely they will watch the debates between Bush and Kerry, which is significantly higher than debate interest in the last two elections.

In general, campaign 2004 continues to get high marks from the voters. Nearly all voters (90%) view the campaign as "important," and 63% believe it has been "informative." Moreover, the number who describe the campaign as "interesting" increased sharply over the summer, from 31% in June to 50% currently. Reflecting the campaign`s recent nasty turn, however, more voters also characterize the campaign as "too negative" ­ 62% say that now, compared with 46% two months ago.

Other key findings of the survey:

* Slightly more voters think that President Bush did not meet all of his service obligations while in the National Guard than say he did (43% vs. 33%). But only about a quarter (26%) say it bothers them.

* John Edwards` favorable ratings have declined ­ from 58% in August to 49% ­ and he runs about even with Dick Cheney in a match-up of vice-presidential running mates (46% Edwards/44% Cheney).

* The questions surrounding Bush and Kerry`s service during the Vietnam war have drawn much more attention from committed voters than swing voters. Fewer than one-in-five swing voters are following either story very closely.

* More than half of all voters ­ and 64% of swing voters ­ agree with the statement: "It`s not clear what George W. Bush is going to do about Iraq if he is reelected."

* This month`s tragedy at a Russian school, during which scores of children were killed by Chechen separatists, has drawn wide attention in the U.S. About the same number followed the school tragedy very closely as followed the opening of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Hier Umfrage Nr.2 von Gallup, das bekannteste Umfrage Unternehmen.
Die Links:
Gallup:http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13066
Pew Research:http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=224

Es sieht fast schon so aus als ob eine Menge Leute die Befragerei satt haben und die Anrufer nur noch veralbern.
Normalerweise geht das Institut von einem gewissen Prozentsatz aus, die Juxantworten geben, aber das kann sich auch ändern.
Wenn man den Schnitt der Umfragen nimmt, hat Bush eine kleinen Vorsprung, aber die Frage ist, ob es auch in den Swing Staaten reicht.
Bush ist sehr stark in seinen Hochburgen und ist da auch noch stärker geworden, aber bei den Wechselwählern soll Kerry besser ankommen.

September 17, 2004
Bush Bounce Keeps On Going
President leads Kerry by 13 points among likely voters; 8 points among registered voters


by David W. Moore

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- In a new Gallup Poll, conducted Sept. 13-15, President George W. Bush leads Democratic candidate John Kerry by 55% to 42% among likely voters, and by 52% to 44% among registered voters. These figures represent a significant improvement for Bush since just before the beginning of the Republican National Convention.

In the immediate aftermath of that convention, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed Bush receiving a modest bounce from his standing before the convention. Among likely voters, Bush`s support was up two points and Kerry`s was down two points. Among the larger sample of registered voters, Bush`s support was up two points, while Kerry`s was unchanged.

The bounce was small, whether measured among the likely or the registered voter groups, so that it was well within the margin of error of the post-convention poll. Given the sample sizes of the two groups, one could not say with 95% certainty that Bush`s support had actually increased.

Now, in the new poll, the figures show Bush with a 13-point lead over Kerry among likely voters and an 8-point lead among registered voters. Both sets of figures represent significant increases in Bush`s standing in the race since just before the beginning of the Republican convention in late August, when likely voters chose Bush over Kerry by a slight three-point margin (50% to 47%), and registered voters leaned toward Kerry by an even smaller margin of one point (48% to 47%).

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Pew Research

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Hier noch ein wenig die Pollitis weitergesponnen.
Ich hatte schon öfter Seiten eingestellt, die sich mit den Wahlmännern für die Wahl des Prädidenten beschäftigen.
Diese Seite beleuchtet dieses Thema von allen Seiten.
gestern stand es Kerry 223 Bush 311,
heute sind es Kerry 211 Bush 307. Grund siehe im Text.
Alle Polls für alle Staaten grafisch aufbereitet:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/state-graphs.html
Alle Polls in Zahlen für jeden Staat:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/pastpolls.html
Exceldatei von den letzten Poll, der für die Berechnung zählt:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep17.xls
Es gibt noch vieles mehr State-by-State Margins Sept. 17 usw.
Dann habe ich noch einen Artikel angehängt aus dem NYer Newsday über Schwächen bei dem Befragungsmodus. Es geht darum, dass beim Polling nur Festnetzkunden befragt werden. In den USA gibt es ~169 Mio Mobil Kunden, die oftmals keinen Festnetzanschluß haben.


News from the Votemaster
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
The American Research Group is polling all 50 states. All were telephone polls with a MoE of 4%. The first 20 polls were just released. The rest will follow soon. The first batch were mostly the solid blue and solid red states, including the first polls for Nebraska and Wyoming. Bush has commanding leads of 31% and 36%, respectively in those two states. That`s why nobody was willing to spend the money to poll them before. The only two states that changed are Maine (was tied, now Kerry by 4%) and Colorado (was Kerry by 1%, now Bush by 1%).

The poll also concluded that without Nader, Kerry is leading Bush nationally by 48% by 45% and with Nader by 46% to 45% with Nader at 3%. Among likely voters, it is Kerry 47%, Bush 47%, Nader 3%. The Harris national poll (Sept. 9-13) puts Kerry ahead 48% to 47% and the Pew poll (Sept. 11-14) puts Bush ahead 47% to 46%. In contrast, Gallup (Sept. 13-15) has Bush ahead 55% to 42%. It is not clear why Gallup is contradicting three other polls that say the race is tied nationally.

Jimmy Breslin of Newsday had an column yesterday that, if true, makes this website irrelevant. Breslin claims that pollsters do not call the 168 million cell phones in the country. Since many younger voters do not have a land line and just a cell phone, they will be hugely underrepresented in all the telephone polls. Since younger voters lean more towards the Democrats than the average voter, the polls may be greatly underestimating Kerry`s strength. Between missing all the people who have only a cell phone and no land line and the 5 million overseas voters, the polls maybe missing a very large section of the electorate. If anyone working for a pollster or telecom company knows ***for sure*** whether pollsters call cell phones, please let me know. But please don`t send e-mail on this subject if you are just speculating.

And, as has become normal in recent years, the election is being fought over in the Florida courts. No fewer than three courts, including the Florida supreme court, are now involved in the issue of whether the Reform Party actually exists in Florida and thus whether its nominee, Ralph Nader, can appear on the ballot. Nader did not gather signatures in Florida, claiming to be the nominee of the Reform Party, which if not clinically dead, has been in deep hibernation for years. Just in case you have been living on the back side of the moon for the past four years, Bush won Florida in 2000 by 537 votes with 97,421 votes going to Nader. Jeb Bush is doing his utmost to see that Nader appears on the ballot. Perhaps he has come to believe that the extraordinary intensity of the storms Florida has been experiencing for the past few weeks might be related to global warming and he now thinks that Nader will protect the environment better than his brother.
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 211 Bush 307
[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Making call on sham of political polling
Jimmy Breslin
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/ny-nybr…
September 16, 2004

Anybody who believes these national political polls are giving you facts is a gullible fool.

Any editors of newspapers or television news shows who use poll results as a story are beyond gullible. On behalf of the public they profess to serve, they are indolent salesmen of falsehoods.

This is because these political polls are done by telephone. Land-line telephones, as your house phone is called.

The telephone polls do not include cellular phones. There are almost 169 million cell phones being used in America today - 168,900,019 as of Sept. 15, according to the cell phone institute in Washington.

There is no way to poll cell phone users, so it isn`t done.

Not one cell phone user has received a call on their cell phone asking them how they plan to vote as of today.

Out of 168 million, anything can happen. Midway through election night, these stern-faced network announcers suddenly will be frozen white and they have to give a result:

"It appears that the winner of the election tonight is ... Milford J. Schmitt of New Albany, Ind. He presently has 56 percent of the vote, placing him well ahead of John Kerry, George Bush and another newcomer, Gibson D. Mills of Corvallis, Ore. It appears the nation`s voting habits have been changed unbeknownst to us. Mr. Schmitt was asked what party he is in. He answered, `The winning party.`"

Those who have both cell phones and land lines still might have been polled the old way - on their land lines by people making phone calls with scientifically weighted questions and to targeted areas for some big pollster. These results are announced by the pollsters: "CBS-New York Times poll shows George Bush and John Kerry in a statistical dead heat in the presidential race."

Beautiful. There are 169 million phones that they didn`t even try. This makes the poll nothing more than a fake and a fraud, a shill and a sham. The big pollster doesn`t know what he has. The television and newspaper brilliants put it out like it is a baseball score. Except not one person involved can say that they truly know what they are talking about.

"I don`t use telephones anymore because there is no easy way to use them," John Zogby was saying yesterday. It was the 20th anniversary of the start of his polling company. He began with what he calls "blue highway polls," sheriffs` races in Onandaga and Jefferson counties in upstate New York.

"The people who are using telephone surveys are in denial," Zogby was saying. "It is similar to the `30s, when they first started polling by telephones and there were people who laughed at that and said you couldn`t trust them because not everybody had a home phone. Now they try not to mention cell phones. They don`t look or listen. They go ahead with a method that is old and wrong."

Zogby points out that you don`t know in which area code the cell phone user lives. Nor do you know what they do. Beyond that, you miss younger people who live on cell phones. If you do a political poll on land-line phones, you miss those from 18 to 25, and there are figures all over the place that show there are 40 million between the ages of 18 and 29, one in five eligible voters.

And the great page-one presidential polls don`t come close to reflecting how these younger voters say they might vote. The majority of them use cell phones and nobody ever asks them anything.

Common sense would say that the majority of the 18 to 25 who do vote would vote for the Democrat. The people who say they want to vote for Bush are generally in the older age brackets, and they don`t have as much trouble with the lies told by Bush and his people. The older people also use cell phones much less because they can`t hear on the things and when trying to dial a number on these midget instruments they stand there for an hour and get nothing done. The young people on cell phones appear not to be listening and they hear every syllable. They punch out a number without looking.

They are quicker, and probably smarter at this time, and almost doubtlessly more in favor of Kerry than Bush.

Older people complain about Kerry`s performance as a candidate. Younger people don`t want to get shot at in a war that most believe, and firmly, never should have started because it was started with a president lying.

Zogby has no opinion because he is a professional figure man and he has no figures he trusts.

"I am making a segue into Internet polling, which is going to be the future," he was saying yesterday. "You use screened e-mails of hundreds of thousands. Every household has some chance of being polled. How can you not do it that way? I have three children. The one in Washington uses only a cell phone. The ones at home use cell phones."

If you want a poll on the Kerry-Bush race, sit down and make up your own. It is just as good as the monstrous frauds presented on television and the newspaper first pages.

Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?
Einige Links:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm

"Advantage is a better soldier than rashness." -Montjoy in Wm. Shakespeare`s Henry V, 3.6.120

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D.

09/17/04 "ICH" -- During a BBC radio interview on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan created a controversy by reiterating his long-held position that the Iraq War was illegal because it breached the United Nations Charter. [1] On Thursday, the imperial leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" retaliated by vehemently arguing that their Iraq War was, to the contrary, legal. [2]

Obviously, this dispute raises a legal question: "Whose opinion is correct, and whose is incorrect?" Additionally, we should be asking ourselves: "Who decides? (i.e., `Whose jurisprudential opinion shall be dispositive for purposes of resolving this dispute?`)"

It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would have to be the world`s foremost experts in the field of international law. Hence, the UN`s chief and the coalition`s leaders need to know how the world`s top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential dispute. And we, the people, need to know who`s right and who`s wrong here.

Realistically, one cannot seriously expect the disputants -- much less their national electorates -- to wade through numerous legal documents, most of which contain rigorous and not-occasionally tedious reasoning, to find the correct answer. Thus, it seems prudent to proceed directly to the world`s most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: "Was the Iraq War legal, or illegal, under international law?"

And The World`s Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world`s foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]

Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars of aggression.

And the experts` answer would hold true regardless of whether their governing legal authority was: (A) the UN Security Council Resolutions that were passed to implement the conflict-resolution provisions of the UN Charter; or (B) prior treaties and juridical holdings which have long since become general international law. [4]

Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves that the experts` overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down approximately one-fourth of the way, after you`ve clicked onto this ES website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm "The Legality Of The Iraq War" .) Why?

That document was drafted and signed by the world`s foremost international law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they`d drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.

Skeptical readers who don`t regard this highly-authoritative conclusion as an adequate answer are invited to undertake the legal reasoning for themselves at the ES website. Note that every applicable Article in the UN Charter, and every relevant UN Security Council Resolution, is cited and analyzed therein. And readers who continue to scroll down the ES website will find a succession of articles which summarize the opinions of noteworthy individual experts on international law. These, too, strongly confirm that the invasion of Iraq constituted an illegal war of aggression under international law. [5]

Finally, ambitious readers will learn what non-credible source was most responsible for propagating the fictitious pre-war claim that Saddam Hussein`s Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (hint: yet another uncredentialed neocon think-tanker from the thoroughly-discredited American Enterprise Institute).

Three Conclusions It is the overwhelming consensus of the world`s foremost international law experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan`s opinion is correct (i.e., true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal; and

(2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing`s" leaders is incorrect (i.e., false) because their Iraq War was NOT legal.

(3) Therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons` self-delusional groupthink mentality by learning to differentiate between fact and truth, which are all-too-easily confused. For instance, it`s an undeniable fact that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been arguing along the campaign trail that "The Iraq War was legal!" Nevertheless, the mere fact that they`ve been vehemently arguing that point certainly does NOT make it true! Their argument is flawed by a logical fallacy called an ipse dixit (i.e., "something asserted but not proved"). As we`ve already seen, their argument is just plain WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW! Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney are making a false argument (i.e., deceptively asserting something that is untrue).

The Bottom Line Americans should reject the temptation to vote for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, because: (1) both men were advised beforehand that their decision to commence the invasion of Iraq would be blatantly illegal under international law; (2) they invaded nonetheless, and now they`re cynically attempting to mislead the public again by falsely arguing that "The Iraq War was legal!"; (3) however, their argument is legally-meritless nonsense -- the current equivalent of their earlier false argument that torture is a legal method for the US military`s interrogation of prisoners; (4) they`ve repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for universal human rights and democratic governance under the rule of law; and

(5) the 21st-century world isn`t Tombstone`s OK Corral and they certainly aren`t Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday -- however much they might wish us to believe that they are! [6]

ENDNOTES

[1] Read this 9-16-04 PI article by clicking on these blue words: http://www.politinfo.com/articles/article_2004_09_16_4815.ht… "UN Says Nothing New In Annan`s `Illegal War` Comment". Also see this 9-17-04 GU article, which contends that UN Secretary General Annan`s statement wasn`t his long-held opinion, but is new and belated: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1306642,00… "The War Was Illegal"

[2] Read this 9-17-04 JO article by clicking on these blue words: http://snipurl.com/94y0 "Bush Joins Coalition Leaders In Defending War Against Iraq"

[3] Read the 9-15-04 ES`s indispensable analysis by clicking on these blue words: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm#TOP Legality of the Iraq War. If the click-on doesn`t link, paste this URL into your webserver: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm [Skeptical readers should not read to confirm their biases, but instead should set their biases aside until they`ve finished reading all of the legal arguments on this website, which will take awhile.]

[4] There seems to be one relevant omission from the ES website. General international law could have been be cited as an alternative basis for proving the Iraq War`s illegality by analyzing these authoritative precedents: (A) the Kellogg-Briand Pact of Paris (1928); and (B) the Charters, Principles, Indictments, and Holdings from the International Military Tribunals at Nüremberg and Tokyo (1945-48).

[5] Generally speaking, legal opinions offered by government attorneys are NOT considered to be authoritative because: (a) they`re drafted in the adversarial mode of an advocate, often under self-interested political pressure from the executive branch; (b) even at its best, their reasoning tends toward casuistry, reflecting Cicero`s injudicious maxim,"salus populi suprema lex esto" (De Legibus, III, 3.8: "Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law!" Or the Bushites` tortuous translation thereof: "We feel that we can legally torture our prisoners now if it might save our people later!"); and (c) for an apt example, see the history of the Third Reich`s attorneys Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, whose pre-war legal advice to Reichsführer Hitler was that Germany could use the pretext of an imminent threat to "preemptively" invade Poland, for which war crime they were both tried, sentenced, and hanged to death by the International Military Tribunal at Nüremberg. Note bene, Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush administration "torture memo" attorneys Bybee, Chertoff, Gonzales, Haynes and Woo!

[6] Read Douglas Jehl`s 9-16-4 CD/SPI article by clicking on these blue words: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-02.htm "CIA Analysis Holds Bleak Vision For Iraq`s Future". Also see the 9-16-04 Dreyfuss Report column: http://tompaine.com/archives/the_dreyfuss_report.php "Annan For President"

Author: Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the American Center for International Law ("ACIL"). <[e-mail]>

©2004EAPIII

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

ROAD2HELL

shockwave movie

[urlStream]http://www.gritty.org/road2hell/movies/road2hell.html

[urlDownload]http://www.gritty.org/road2hell/movies/Road2HellSwf.zip[/url][/url]

[Joerver]

From Bad to Worse in Iraq

Analysis by Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON, Sep 16 (IPS) - After weeks of hurricanes and controversies over swift boats in Vietnam and Texas and Alabama National Guard records, Iraq is beginning to creep back onto the front pages, and the news is uniformly bad.

Consider some of the headlines in major newspapers that appeared on their front pages on Wednesday alone:

Wall Street Journal: ”Rebel Attacks Reveal New Cooperation: Officials Fear Recent Rise in Baghdad Violence Stems from Growing Coordination”.

Baltimore Sun: ”In Iraq, Chance for Credible Vote is Slipping Away”.

Philadelphia Inquirer: ”Outlook: The Growing Insurgency Could Doom U.S. Plans for Iraq, Analysts Say”.

Washington Post: ”U.S. Plans to Divert Iraq Money: Attacks Prompt Request to Move Reconstruction Funds to Security Forces”.

And then Thursday:

USA Today: ”Insurgents in Iraq Appear More Powerful Than Ever”.

New York Times: ”U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq`s Future: Civil War Called Possible -- Tone Differs from Public Statements”.

All of which tended to confirm the conclusion of the latest `Newsweek` magazine`s Iraq feature: ”It`s Worse Than You Think”.

Against these stories -- putting aside the other headlines detailing deadly suicide and other attacks that have killed scores of Iraqis in the past week -- Bush`s insistence in a campaign address to a convention of the National Guard Tuesday that ”our strategy is succeeding” appears awfully hollow, a point made repeatedly not only by Democratic, but by some Republican lawmakers at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday.

”It`s beyond pitiful, it`s beyond embarrassing,” noted Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who has long been sceptical of administration claims that the Iraq occupation was going well. ”It is now in the zone of dangerous.”

Indeed, it is now very difficult to find any analysts outside of the administration or the Bush campaign who share the official optimism.

Consider the case of Michael O`Hanlon, a defence specialist at the Brookings Institution and former National Security Council aide who has been among the most confident of independent analysts of the basic soundness of Washington`s strategy in Iraq.

”In my judgment the administration is basically correct that the overall effort in Iraq is succeeding,” he testified to a Congressional panel just 10 months ago. ”By the standards of counterinsurgency warfare, most factors, though admittedly not all, appear to be working to our advantage.”

This week, however, O`Hanlon, who has developed a detailed index periodically published in the New York Times that measures U.S. progress in post-war Iraq, was singing an entirely different song at a forum sponsored by Brookings and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

”We`re in much worse shape than I thought we`d ever be,” he said. ”I don`t know how you get it back,” he conceded, adding that his last remaining hope was that somehow the U.S. could train enough indigenous Iraqi security forces within two to three years to keep the country ”cohesive” and permit an eventual U.S. withdrawal. ”A Lebanonisation of Iraq” was also quite possible, he said.

His conclusion was echoed by his CSIS co-panelists, Frederick Barton and Bathsheba Crocker, who direct their own index that relies heavily on interviews with Iraqis themselves in measuring progress in reconstruction .

According to the five general criteria used by them, movement over the past 13 months has for the most part been ”backward”, particularly with respect to security which they now consider to be squarely in the ”danger” zone.

”Security and economic problems continue to overshadow and undermine efforts across the board”, including health care, education and governance, according to a report their project released last week. Among other things, it noted that despite a massive school-building and rehabilitation programme, children are increasingly dropping out to help their families survive an economy where almost half the working population remains unemployed.

The growing media chorus of despair actually began just one week ago, a few days after the brilliantly staged Republican convention in New York City had ended, when the U.S. military death toll in Iraq since last year`s invasion topped the 1,000 mark, and the New York Times published a front-page article entitled ”U.S. Conceding Rebels Control Regions of Iraq”.

Since then, a number of articles have featured the increasing violence of the insurgency, which is now mounting an average of more than 80 attacks on U.S. targets -- four times the number of one year ago and 25 percent higher than last spring, when the U.S. faced serious uprisings in both the Sunni Triangle and in the south.

Washington officials had predicted that attacks would increase sharply just before the transfer of sovereignty from the U.S.-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to the interim government headed by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in late June and would tail off.

But, as noted by a front-page article in the Washington Post late last week, more U.S. troops were killed in July and August than during the initial invasion in March and April 2003. Injuries suffered by U.S. troops in August alone were twice what they were during the invasion.

The escalation in violence over the summer is now being attributed by administration officials to the insurgents` efforts to derail the elections, currently scheduled for January.

The increased violence -- particularly in Baghdad and the so-called ”Sunni Triangle” where Falluja, Ramadi, Baquba and Samarra, among other towns, are controlled by insurgents -- has created a serious dilemma for administration strategists who, on the one hand, reject the notion that there are ”no-go” areas for U.S. troops, and, on the other, want to keep U.S. casualties down and off the front pages and U.S. television sets, particularly before the November elections here.

As a result, they appear to have settled on a strategy -- bombing suspected insurgent hideouts from the air -- that further alienates the civilian population.

”I don`t believe that you can flatten cities and expect to win popular support,” noted CSIS` Barton.

”This is the classic contradiction of counterinsurgency,” Steven Metz, a strategy specialist at the U.S. Army War College, told the Inquirer. ”In the long term, winning the people matters more. But it may be that in the short term, you have to forgo that in order to crush the insurgents. Right now, we are trying to decide whether we have reached that point. In Vietnam, we waited too long.”

Meanwhile, both independent and U.S. military analysts believe that the insurgency, which the administration still insists is made up only of Baathist ”dead-enders”, foreign ”jihadis”, and criminals, has grown from an estimated 5,000 people one year ago to at least 20,000 and possibly significantly more.

”The bottom line is, at this moment we are losing the war”, Col Andrew Bacevich (ret.) of Boston University told USA Today Thursday. ”That doesn`t mean it is lost, but we are losing, and as an observer it is difficult for me to see that either the civilian leaderhsip or the military leadership has any plausible idea on how to turn this around”. (END/2004)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Lebanon No Model for Iraq

By Ronald Bruce St John | September 15, 2004

Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC)

Foreign Policy In Focus
www.fpif.org


Increasingly desperate to find a winning formula in Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials are promoting Lebanon as a political model for Iraq. Agreed, the situation in Iraq is looking more and more like Lebanon--but not the “Lebanese model” Cheney talks about. The vice president appears to have in mind a pre-1967 Lebanon in which an elite of notables presided over a pluralistic republic, open to foreign capital, and free enterprise. Beirut in those days was known as the Paris of the Orient.

The Lebanon I have in mind is the one I worked in for several years in the late 1970s and early 1980s after the collapse of the Lebanese political system in the 1975-76 civil war. Torn by ethnic strife and bloody struggles for power, communally based militias presided over sectarian murder and other acts of terror. Foreign powers intervened to turn the conflict to their own strategic advantage as all sides abducted outsiders as bargaining chips.


National Pact

Like Iraq, Lebanon was a Great Power creation following the implosion of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Lebanon was ruled after the war by France under a League of Nations mandate, finally achieving independence in 1943. Composed of widely different secular and religious groups, the Lebanese elites negotiated among themselves an unwritten National Pact in 1943, which proved far more significant than the written laws of the country. It provided for a sectarian political system designed to minimize conflict among religious confessions or communities.

The National Pact was based on a census conducted in 1932 that established the numerical superiority of Christians over Muslims in Lebanon. Consequently, the Maronite Christians of Lebanon, the single-largest confessional group, were guaranteed the presidency of the republic. Sunni Muslims, the second-largest group, were given the office of prime minister. In turn, the speaker of the unicameral house of parliament was a Shia Muslim, his deputy a Greek Orthodox, the defense minister a Druze, and the commander of the armed forces a Maronite Christian.

The president of Lebanon occupied the single most powerful political position under the National Pact because he was both chief executive and the head of the largest single faction of a highly pluralistic society. Both the chief executive and the legislature were empowered to propose legislation; but in the absence of parliamentary approval, the president could declare emergency legislation. He was also responsible for naming a prime minister from the Sunni community following consultation with its traditional leaders. The president could dismiss the prime minister and other ministers; however, this option in practice proved complex and difficult to exercise given the plural nature of the Lebanese political system.


Shortcomings of Lebanese Model

If the Lebanese model were applied to Iraq, a Shiite would presumably be guaranteed the presidency since the Shia community constitutes approximately 60% of the population. Representatives of the Sunni and Kurdish minorities would occupy the much less powerful positions of prime minister and speaker of the national assembly. Whether a Sunni or a Kurd was guaranteed the prime ministry would depend on the outcome of a national census since both communities constitute roughly 20% of the population. Lesser components of Iraq’s religious and ethnic patchwork would be guaranteed even less powerful positions in the political system. Regardless of how power was distributed, the Iraqis would soon face many of the same problems that eventually throttled the sectarian system adopted by Lebanon.

First of all, the Lebanese political system proved inflexible. Based on a census completed in 1932, it froze political power in a highly dynamic society at a specific point in history. Over time, Shia Muslims came to outnumber the Maronite Christians; however, there was no process in the National Pact to accommodate and adjust to shifting power balances. With the Kurdish and Sunni communities in Iraq enjoying roughly equal numbers, at least until an authoritative census is completed, a similar situation would likely develop in Iraq. The population problem in Lebanon was compounded in 1948-49 by the emigration of some 140,000 Palestinians refugees, most of whom were Muslim. A growing Palestinian military and political presence in southern Lebanon threatened by the 1970s to result in a state within a state. Kurdish demands for autonomy in Iraq, coupled with large Kurdish populations in neighboring Turkey and Iran, could eventually produce a related situation in northern Iraq.

More to the point, the National Pact was based on a political consensus negotiated by competing parties in 1943. No such consensus exists in Iraq today. The Kurds remain concerned that local autonomy provisions in the transitional constitution would soon be eroded if majority Shia rule took effect. Shiites oppose a provision that gives the 20% Kurdish minority an effective veto. In central Iraq, the insurgency is driven in part by the desire of the long dominant Sunni minority to retain some vestige of power. It is also fuelled by crosscurrents of Arab pride, Iraqi nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and the tribal loyalties long cultivated by Saddam Hussein. The tendency of U.S. occupation forces to cut separate deals with Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis in a fruitless effort to keep the peace and project an image of consensus where none exists has only exacerbated the problem.

In Lebanon, post-independence prosperity was not shared equally among competing groups, aggravating existing socioeconomic disparities. With strong ties to both East and West, the Christian community was the primary beneficiary of the transformation of the country into a banking, trade, and tourism center. The Sunnis benefited to a lesser degree from economic development; however, the Shia community became something of a permanent underclass in Lebanese society. The Shiites in Iraq were also the underclass under Saddam, but they would become the privileged political and economic community if the Lebanese model were applied to Iraq. The Sunni minority, which has dominated Iraqi politics since independence, would likely find this intolerable. In turn, the Kurdish minority, in conjunction with demands for autonomy, has shown interest and determination in preserving some element of control over the oil resources in northern Iraq.

The competing political forces in Lebanon, unable to accommodate conflicting demands with the existing political system, eventually turned to outside forces for assistance in maintaining or enhancing their domestic political positions. Both Israel and Syria intervened in Lebanon, and the United States and Western Europe later participated in a multilateral peacekeeping force. Iran and Iraq also supported proxy forces in the country. After the U.S. embassy and marine barracks were targeted by suicide bombers in 1983, the United States withdrew its forces; but Syria remains today a dominant player in Lebanese politics. A Balkanized Iraq would present similar threats to and opportunities for the vital interests of Arab states (Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria) and non-Arab states (Iran, Israel, Turkey), together with Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States. An extensive period of foreign intervention in the domestic politics of Iraq would destabilize the entire region.


Iraqi Solution Needed

The sectarian political system adopted by Lebanon in 1943 is not a viable model for Iraq. It is the wrong system in the wrong place at the wrong time. The White House’s suggestion that it might help bring order out of chaos is simply another disheartening example of the absence of Middle East experience and understanding within the Bush administration. The Iraqi people need to work out a political solution for themselves, a solution that includes the active participation of opposition elements within the country. And Washington needs to stop intervening in the Iraqi political process and be prepared to accept the formula the Iraqis decide to adopt. That’s called democracy.

Ronald Bruce St John, an analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, has published widely on Middle Eastern issues. His latest book on the region is Libya and the United States: Two Centuries of Strife (Penn Press, 2002).

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

A Secure America
in a Secure World

Primary Author: John Gershman
with FPIF Task Force on Terrorism

Am Ende einige Links zu Zahlen und Tabellen.
http://www.fpif.org/papers/04terror/index.html

www.fpif.org


I. Executive Summary

The Bush administration’s “war on terrorism” reflects a major failure of leadership and makes Americans more vulnerable rather than more secure. The administration has chosen a path to combat terrorism that has weakened multilateral institutions and squandered international goodwill. Not only has Bush failed to support effective reconstruction in Afghanistan, but his war and occupation in Iraq have made the United States more vulnerable and have opened a new front and a recruiting tool for terrorists while diverting resources from essential homeland security efforts. In short, Washington’s approach to homeland security fails to address key vulnerabilities, undermines civil liberties, and misallocates resources.

The administration has taken some successful steps to counter terrorism, such as improved airline and border security, a partial crackdown on terrorist financing, improved international cooperation in sharing intelligence, the arrest of several high-level al-Qaida figures, and the disruption of a number of planned attacks. But these successes are overwhelmed by policy choices that have made U.S. citizens more rather than less vulnerable. The Bush White House has undermined the very values it claims to be defending at home and abroad—democracy and human rights; both Washington’s credibility and its efforts to combat terrorism are hampered when it aids repressive regimes. Furthermore, the administration has weakened the international legal framework essential to creating a global effort to counter terrorism, and it has failed to address the political contexts—failed states and repressive regimes—that enable and facilitate terrorism.

Six factors explain the failure of the Bush administration’s approach:

A. Overemphasis on Military Responses: The Bush administration has used everyone’s legitimate concerns about terrorism to justify a massive increase in military spending that has little or nothing to do with combating terrorism. According to the Center for Defense Information, only about one-third of the increase in the FY2003 Pentagon budget over pre-Sept. 11 budgets funds programs and activities closely related to homeland security or counterterrorism operations. In addition, by enshrining preventive war in the national security strategy both as a general policy doctrine and for countering terrorism in particular, the administration has further reduced everyone’s security.

B. Failure in Intelligence Sharing: The White House has failed to develop better mechanisms to share critical information both among intelligence agencies and between federal and local agencies. The recently created Terrorist Threat Intelligence Center is unaccountable to Congress and fails to place the coordination of intelligence gathering in the hands of those who must act on the findings.

C. Undermining Democracy and Civil Liberties: The Bush administration has undermined democracy at home through increased government secrecy. On the civil liberties front, the USA PATRIOT Act imposes guilt by association on immigrants, expands the government’s authority to conduct criminal searches and wiretaps, and undermines fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights—none of which have proved necessary or effective in tracking down terrorists.

D. Undermining Homeland Security: Bush’s approach to homeland security has two key flaws. First, his administration has been far too laissez-faire in its approach to ensuring the security of the 85 percent of the nation’s critical infrastructure owned or controlled by the private sector. Second, it has failed to meet the basic needs of emergency responders, has underfunded key national agencies like the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and has created new unfunded mandates for local governments, forcing them to transfer scarce funds from social services and public safety to homeland security tasks.

E. Weakening International Institutions: The Bush administration has been hostile to a whole set of multilateral institutions that are central to enhancing international law and security, from the International Criminal Court to nearly all multilateral arms control and disarmament efforts, including the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, the ABM Treaty, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

F. Failure to Attack Root Causes: The Bush White House has failed to address the root causes of international terrorism and the social and political contexts in which such terrorism thrives, including repressive regimes, failed states, and the way in which poverty and inequality can create conditions of support for terrorist acts. Addressing the basic causes and conditions that facilitate terrorism in no way implies appeasement. Rather, it reflects both a pragmatic commitment to diffuse terrorism’s political roots and a normative commitment to respect the values the United States preaches. Yet, heedless to the time bomb of widening global wealth disparity, the Bush administration has taken advantage of the crisis surrounding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to justify its pursuit of an expanded trade and investment liberalization agenda. This agenda fails to address the central challenges of reducing poverty and inequality and of promoting sustainable growth in developing countries.


A New Framework

A different approach would not fight a “war on terrorism.” Rather, it would treat terrorism as an ongoing threat that needs to be tackled through a strong, coordinated strategy focused on strengthening civilian public sectors and enhancing the international cooperation necessary to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. Although the military has a clear role to play, it is a supporting actor in the fight against terrorism and Washington must restructure the military in ways that enhance its capacities to respond to the threat posed by international terrorism. The safety challenge of terrorism exposes the weakness of Washington’s conventional ideas of national security and the folly of traditional responses—typically military—to threats against U.S. citizens.

America needs a new agenda for combating terrorism, one that secures citizens against attacks and that situates the use of force within an international legal and policy framework. This agenda must bring international terrorists to justice, debilitate their capacity to wage terrorism, and undermine the political credibility of terrorist networks by addressing related political grievances and injustices. Below, we outline a four-part framework for a new agenda to counter terrorism.


A. Strengthen Homeland Security

To do this, the emphasis needs to be on preventing terrorist attacks and mitigating the effects of terrorist violence. Specific initiatives should:

* Improve Intelligence Gathering and Oversight: The coordination of intelligence gathering related to domestic security should be based within the Department of Homeland Security, since this is the agency responsible for acting on the information. The CIA—current home of the Terrorist Threat Intelligence Center—has proven unable to coordinate well with other intelligence agencies. The key issue facing the improvement of domestic counterterrorism intelligence capabilities does not involve a choice of organizational form (i.e., boosting the FBI’s capabilities or creating a new domestic intelligence body) but rather an effort to reinstate civil liberties and reinforce judicial and congressional oversight of intelligence operations.
* Strengthen Border Security: Adequately fund key border security programs and agencies such as the Container Security Initiative, the Coast Guard, and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
* Protect Critical Infrastructure: It is essential that government step up security for critical infrastructure, especially regarding:
o Nuclear Power Plants: Spent reactor fuel pools at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants represent potentially the most consequential vulnerability to terrorist attacks. The most important step that can be taken to significantly reduce this vulnerability is to learn from several European nations that have placed all spent fuel older than five years into thick-walled, dry storage modes.
o The Chemical Industry: The Department of Homeland Security needs to establish and enforce minimum requirements for the improvement of security and the reduction of potential hazards at chemical plants and other industrial facilities that store large quantities of hazardous materials.
o Food and Agriculture Safety: There is a need for a comprehensive national plan both to defend against the intentional introduction of biological agents in an act of terror and to create a network of laboratories to coordinate the detection of bioterror agents in the event of an attack.
o Information Technology: There are numerous serious proposals to better secure information technology in virtually all of the nation’s critical infrastructure, from the air-traffic-control system to aircraft themselves, from the electric-power grid to financial and banking systems, and from the Internet to communication systems.

Support Emergency Responders: In addition to improving emergency preparedness plans, the administration needs to provide training, equipment, and increased support to all levels of government to strengthen emergency response capabilities by fire, police, and rescue departments as well as public health systems, all of which will be frontline emergency responders in case of a terrorist attack.

Prevent Terrorists from Obtaining Weapons: To prevent terrorists from obtaining conventional or other weapons of mass destruction, specific initiatives should:

Strengthen International Conventions: There is a need to fortify the conventions for the control, nonproliferation, and elimination of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.

End the National Missile Defense Program (also known as “Star Wars”): The Sept. 11 attacks highlight how imminent security threats are posed not from missiles but from other types of delivery systems. Combined with concerns about the destabilizing effects of the missile defense system and the false promise of security it offers, the United States should end efforts to build a National Missile Defense system and redirect those monies toward arms control and disarmament efforts.

Control Weapons in Russia: There is a need for increased funding for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and other efforts to monitor and control weapons material in Russia and the former Soviet Union.


B. Strengthen International and National Legal Systems to Hold Terrorists Accountable

An effective response to terrorism requires bolstering the national and international legal infrastructure necessary to identify and prosecute the individuals and organizations that facilitate, finance, perpetrate, and profit from terrorism.

Specific initiatives should:

* Expand international police cooperation;
* Adopt the Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction for prosecutions of crimes against humanity;
* Strengthen the institutions of international law by supporting the creation of a specialized tribunal for judging international terrorists; and,
* Provide technical assistance to countries to implement all the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force with respect to money laundering and terrorist financing.

In those instances where military force is necessary to combat nonstate actors like al-Qaida, working through international institutions is justified on both normative and pragmatic grounds. The use of force should require specific authorization from the United Nations Security Council that includes specific goals and a time line, and military operations would preferably be under U.N. control. In any event, the exercise of such force should adhere to international humanitarian law and the principles of the “just war” tradition.


C. Defend and Promote Democracy at Home and Abroad

Antiterrorist efforts should not sacrifice the very values that Americans are trying to defend. Washington must listen closely to the mounting concerns of civil libertarians and constitutional rights groups who caution that the new counterterrorism campaign may lead to a garrison state that undermines all that America stands for while doing little to protect citizens against unconventional threats. The USA PATRIOT Act is perhaps the greatest threat to civil liberties in the country today, and we applaud the numerous states, cities, towns, and counties that have passed resolutions demanding that local law enforcement not implement the provisions of those regulations that infringe on basic rights.

In forging international coalitions against terrorism, the administration should strengthen restrictions on the provision of military aid, weapons, and training to regimes that systematically violate human rights. Proactively, the White House and Congress should more rigorously condition such programs on adherence to internationally recognized human rights standards. In addition, the United States should support efforts to strengthen international legal and human rights norms, conventions, and organizations and should evaluate its own foreign policies in light of those norms.


D. Attack Root Causes

Combating terrorism requires looking beyond any one terrorist event—horrific as it may be—to address the broader socioeconomic, political, and military contexts from which international terrorism emerges. Because terrorism is a particular kind of violent act aimed at achieving a political objective, a preventive strategy must address its political roots.

U.S. policy must recognize a distinction between international terrorism in general and the specific threat posed by al-Qaida and other extremist Islamist movements, so as not to be perceived as waging a war on Islam. The 9/11 Commission Report, for example, is careful to make such a distinction. This requires that U.S. policymakers learn to distinguish between illegitimate demands and legitimate demands pursued through illegitimate means. The anti-democratic and jihadist character of al-Qaida’s ideology suggests that even if the United States were to pursue the kinds of alternative policies outlined here, Americans would still be the target of attacks by committed members of al-Qaida and similar groups. Addressing root causes is one way of insuring that terrorist group efforts to mobilize support meet as inhospitable a social, economic, and political climate as possible.

The success of these policies will only be fully realized when there are no more breeding grounds for terrorist politics. These political contexts include: repressive political regimes, which spawn terrorism; failed and failing states, which can provide terrorists with arenas for operations; poverty and inequality, which can enhance support for terrorist acts and provide a source of recruits, even though poverty itself does not cause terrorism; and efforts by the United States to institutionalize its positions of global dominance, including through alliances with repressive regimes.

Specific initiatives should:

Strengthen and Democratize International Bodies for Effective Global Governance: By proclaiming global dominance as its overarching strategic objective, the United States has made itself a target. Bush’s pursuit of the preventive war doctrine as the foundation of such dominance—embodied in the invasion and occupation of Iraq—can be used to justify the argument that the current “war on terrorism” is in fact a war on Islam. And Washington’s current foreign policy has further reinforced the beliefs of those who argue that the United States is an imperial power intent on holding itself above the law.

In addition to strengthening the U.N. and other multilateral institutions, the United States must reconfigure its approach to security. We suggest a dual focus: on the cooperative arrangements necessary to insure our protection in an era of international terrorist networks with global reach, and on deterrence against possible threats from state antagonists. Such efforts require a vibrant network of global, regional, and bilateral alliances whereby the security of the world strengthens the security of America.

End Support for Repressive Regimes: The United States must, in both word and deed, make a clean break with its history of support for repressive regimes throughout the world. Such a move would entail curbing military aid, expanding human rights and democracy, and reducing the dependence of the United States and its allies on oil imports from repressive regimes. Additional steps would include: (1) withholding military aid and opposing weapons sales to countries that systematically violate basic human rights, and (2) increasing support for human rights and democracy in North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Colombia, and elsewhere through bilateral and multilateral initiatives.

Deal with Failed States: The Afghanistan situation, and the broader reality that weak and failing states can provide enabling conditions for the operations of terrorist networks, has highlighted the need for increasing the U.N.’s capacity to engage in peace enforcement, peacekeeping, and other “nation-building” activities.

Reorient U.S Policy in the Middle East and Central Asia: A broader U.S. policy along the lines of respecting basic human rights and democratic freedoms in the Middle East and elsewhere could still contribute to easing—though not eradicating—the conditions associated with terrorism. Such efforts would involve eliminating weapons of mass destruction and addressing the political grievances behind continuing unrest in the region. This includes opposing the bigotry embodied in both al-Qaida’s and other extremist groups’ opposition to Israel’s existence. The United States should continue its strategic and moral commitment to Israeli sovereignty, but there is a distinction between Israel’s right to exist and support for the occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. Washington’s tacit approval of the occupation plays a major role in fueling anti-American extremism, sentiments that al-Qaida has opportunistically used to its own advantage. Specific initiatives should:

* End U.S. financial and military backing for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza;
* Advocate Palestinian self-determination and a negotiated settlement as outlined in U.N. Security Council resolutions;
* Promote efforts to create a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East;
* Strengthen the multilateral forces involved in Afghanistan to provide the security necessary for reconstruction and development; and
* Set an immediate timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and channel support primarily through the United Nations to promote reconstruction and development.

Address Poverty and Inequality: An expansion of broad-based development can, under certain conditions, weaken local support for terrorist activities and discourage terrorist recruits. Since approval of some organizations engaged in terrorist acts is due in part to the social services and financial incentives that those organizations provide, an expansion of economic opportunities can decrease direct participation in those organizations or dampen enthusiasm for their activities.

Development policies that weaken states’ capacities to insure access to, or provision of, basic services can create conditions in which terrorist groups can more easily mobilize support. At the global level, the Bush administration should end its promotion of trade and investment agreements that reinforce the discredited policies of the Washington Consensus. Instead, the United States should reorient discussions at bilateral, regional, and global economic organizations and meetings toward creating a multilateral framework more conducive to the development of poor countries. Washington should also reduce the debt owed to it by developing countries, champion debt reduction efforts at the international financial institutions, and seek an end to structural adjustment lending by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Promote Clean Energy: The United States should pursue an energy policy at home and abroad that emphasizes conservation, energy efficiency, and renewables and that makes itself and its allies less reliant on imported oil supplies.


Changing Course

No single component of this framework is an adequate response to terrorism. Only by joining all four strategies—pursuing prevention and preparedness, strengthening the international framework for multilateral action, defending and promoting civil rights, and addressing root causes—will the U.S. government be able to truthfully tell the American people that it is doing all that it can to prevent future terrorist attacks. Our proposed security strategy would be more effective at making the U.S. a safer place for all its citizens. It would also have the added advantages of improving the nation’s quality of life by improving public safety, health care, and air quality.

The 9/11 Commission has accomplished a great deal by placing this debate at the forefront of policy debates. But its recommendations focus somewhat narrowly on intelligence operations and congressional oversight without addressing the broader foreign policy, military, and homeland security issues that are equally important to constructing an effective response to terrorism. Its contribution, while important, remains inadequate to forging the comprehensive strategy necessary to effectively combat terrorism.

The challenge is to construct a national security policy that demonstrates America’s new commitment to protecting U.S. citizens by incorporating effective counterterror measures into the national security strategy. At the same time, American citizens must demand and U.S. foreign policy must assert a renewed commitment to constructing an international framework of peace, justice, and security that locks terrorists out in the cold—with no home, no supporters, no money, and no rallying cry. With that response, the events of September 11, 2001, will indeed have changed America and the world.



Executive Summary | Introduction | A Failed Policy | A New Framework | Changing Course | Endnotes
App. 1: Funding for Counterterrorism | App. 2: Major U.N. Conventions Against Terrorism |
App. 3: U.N. Security Council Resolutions Regarding Terrorism Post-September 11, 2001
Foreign Policy In Focus Task Force on Terrorism

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]



The land of the polls, noch ne Poll Sammlung, diesmal von Slate(MSNBC)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2106527/fr/ifr/

[Joerver]

Published on Friday, September 17, 2004 by TomDispatch.com
The Resort to Force
by Noam Chomsky


As Colin Powell explained the National Security Strategy (NSS) of September 2002 to a hostile audience at the World Economic Forum, Washington has a ``sovereign right to use force to defend ourselves`` from nations that possess WMD and cooperate with terrorists, the official pretexts for invading Iraq. The collapse of the pretexts is well known, but there has been insufficient attention to its most important consequence: the NSS was effectively revised to lower the bars to aggression. The need to establish ties to terror was quietly dropped. More significant, Bush and colleagues declared the right to resort to force even if a country does not have WMD or even programs to develop them. It is sufficient that it have the ``intent and ability`` to do so. Just about every country has the ability, and intent is in the eye of the beholder. The official doctrine, then, is that anyone is subject to overwhelming attack. Colin Powell carried the revision even a step further. The president was right to attack Iraq because Saddam not only had ``intent and capability`` but had ``actually used such horrible weapons against his enemies in Iran and against his own people``-- with continuing support from Powell and his associates, he failed to add, following the usual convention. Condoleezza Rice gave a similar version. With such reasoning as this, who is exempt from attack? Small wonder that, as one Reuters report put it, ``if Iraqis ever see Saddam Hussein in the dock, they want his former American allies shackled beside him.``

In the desperate flailing to contrive justifications as one pretext after another collapsed, the obvious reason for the invasion was conspicuously evaded by the administration and commentators: to establish the first secure military bases in a client state right at the heart of the world`s major energy resources, understood since World War II to be a ``stupendous source of strategic power`` and expected to become even more important in the future. There should have been little surprise at revelations that the administration intended to attack Iraq before 9-11, and downgraded the ``war on terror`` in favor of this objective. In internal discussion, evasion is unnecessary. Long before they took office, the private club of reactionary statists had recognized that ``the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.`` With all the vacillations of policy since the current incumbents first took office in 1981, one guiding principle remains stable: the Iraqi people must not rule Iraq.

The 2002 National Security Strategy, and its implementation in Iraq, are widely regarded as a watershed in international affairs. ``The new approach is revolutionary,`` Henry Kissinger wrote, approving of the doctrine but with tactical reservations and a crucial qualification: it cannot be ``a universal principle available to every nation.`` The right of aggression is to be reserved for the US and perhaps its chosen clients. We must reject the most elementary of moral truisms, the principle of universality -- a stand usually concealed in professions of virtuous intent and tortured legalisms.

Arthur Schlesinger agreed that the doctrine and implementation were ``revolutionary,`` but from a quite different standpoint. As the first bombs fell on Baghdad, he recalled FDR`s words following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, ``a date which will live in infamy.`` Now it is Americans who live in infamy, he wrote, as their government adopts the policies of imperial Japan. He added that George Bush had converted a ``global wave of sympathy`` for the US into a ``global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism.`` A year later, ``discontent with America and its policies had intensified rather than diminished.`` Even in Britain support for the war had declined by a third.

As predicted, the war increased the threat of terror. Middle East expert Fawaz Gerges found it ``simply unbelievable how the war has revived the appeal of a global jihadi Islam that was in real decline after 9-11.`` Recruitment for the Al Qaeda networks increased, while Iraq itself became a ``terrorist haven`` for the first time. Suicide attacks for the year 2003 reached the highest level in modern times; Iraq suffered its first since the thirteenth century. Substantial specialist opinion concluded that the war also led to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

As the anniversary of the invasion approached, New York`s Grand Central Station was patrolled by police with submachine guns, a reaction to the March 11 Madrid train bombings that killed 200 people in Europe`s worst terrorist crime. A few days later, the Spanish electorate voted out the government that had gone to war despite overwhelming popular opposition. Spaniards were condemned for appeasing terrorism by voting for withdrawing troops from Iraq in the absence of UN authorization -- that is, for taking a stand rather like that of 70 percent of Americans, who called for the UN to take the leading role in Iraq.

Bush assured Americans that ``The world is safer today because, in Iraq, our coalition ended a regime that cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.`` The president`s handlers know that every word is false, but they also know that lies can become Truth, if repeated insistently enough.

There is broad agreement among specialists on how to reduce the threat of terror --keeping here to the subcategory that is doctrinally acceptable, their terror against us -- and also on how to incite terrorist atrocities, which may become truly horrendous. The consensus is well articulated by Jason Burke in his study of the Al Qaeda phenomenon, the most detailed and informed investigation of this loose array of radical Islamists for whom bin Laden is hardly more than a symbol (a more dangerous one after he is killed, perhaps, becoming a martyr who inspires others to join his cause). The role of Washington`s current incumbents, in their Reaganite phase, in creating the radical Islamist networks is well known. Less familiar is their tolerance of Pakistan`s slide toward radical Islamist extremism and its development of nuclear weapons.

As Burke reviews, Clinton`s 1998 bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan created bin Laden as a symbol, forged close relations between him and the Taliban, and led to a sharp increase in support, recruitment, and financing for Al Qaeda, which until then was virtually unknown. The next major contribution to the growth of Al Qaeda and the prominence of bin Laden was Bush`s bombing of Afghanistan following September 11, undertaken without credible pretext as later quietly conceded. As a result, bin Laden`s message ``spread among tens of millions of people, particularly the young and angry, around the world,`` Burke writes, reviewing the increase in global terror and the creation of ``a whole new cadre of terrorists`` enlisted in what they see as a ``cosmic struggle between good and evil,`` a vision shared by bin Laden and Bush. As noted, the invasion of Iraq had the same effect.

Citing many examples, Burke concludes that ``Every use of force is another small victory for bin Laden,`` who ``is winning,`` whether he lives or dies. Burke`s assessment is widely shared by many analysts, including former heads of Israeli military intelligence and the General Security Services.

There is also a broad consensus on what the proper reaction to terrorism should be. It is two-pronged: directed at the terrorists themselves and at the reservoir of potential support. The appropriate response to terrorist crimes is police work, which has been successful worldwide. More important is the broad constituency the terrorists -- who see themselves as a vanguard -- seek to mobilize, including many who hate and fear them but nevertheless see them as fighting for a just cause. We can help the vanguard mobilize this reservoir of support by violence, or can address the ``myriad grievances,`` many legitimate, that are ``the root causes of modern Islamic militancy.`` That can significantly reduce the threat of terror, and should be undertaken independently of this goal.

Violence can succeed, as Americans know well from the conquest of the national territory. But at terrible cost. It can also provoke violence in response, and often does. Inciting terror is not the only illustration. Others are even more hazardous.

In February 2004, Russia carried out its largest military exercises in two decades, prominently exhibiting advanced WMD. Russian generals and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that they were responding to Washington`s plans ``to make nuclear weapons an instrument of solving military tasks,`` including its development of new low-yield nuclear weapons, ``an extremely dangerous tendency that is undermining global and regional stability,... lowering the threshold for actual use.`` Strategic analyst Bruce Blair writes that Russia is well aware that the new ``bunker busters`` are designed to target the ``high-level nuclear command bunkers`` that control its nuclear arsenal. Ivanov and Russian generals report that in response to US escalation they are deploying ``the most advanced state-of-the-art missile in the world,`` perhaps next to impossible to destroy, something that ``would be very alarming to the Pentagon,`` says former Assistant Defense Secretary Phil Coyle. US analysts suspect that Russia may also be duplicating US development of a hypersonic cruise vehicle that can re-enter the atmosphere from space and launch devastating attacks without warning, part of US plans to reduce reliance on overseas bases or negotiated access to air routes.

US analysts estimate that Russian military expenditures have tripled during the Bush-Putin years, in large measure a predicted reaction to the Bush administration`s militancy and aggressiveness. Putin and Ivanov cited the Bush doctrine of ``preemptive strike``-- the ``revolutionary`` new doctrine of the National Security Strategy -- but also ``added a key detail, saying that military force can be used if there is an attempt to limit Russia`s access to regions that are essential to its survival,`` thus adapting for Russia the Clinton doctrine that the US is entitled to resort to ``unilateral use of military power`` to ensure ``uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.`` The world ``is a much more insecure place`` now that Russia has decided to follow the US lead, said Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institution, adding that other countries presumably ``will follow suit.``

In the past, Russian automated response systems have come within a few minutes of launching a nuclear strike, barely aborted by human intervention. By now the systems have deteriorated. US systems, which are much more reliable, are nevertheless extremely hazardous. They allow three minutes for human judgment after computers warn of a missile attack, as they frequently do. The Pentagon has also found serious flaws in its computer security systems that might allow terrorist hackers to seize control and simulate a launch--``an accident waiting to happen,`` Bruce Blair writes. The dangers are being consciously escalated by the threat and use of violence.

Concern is not eased by the recent discovery that US presidents have been ``systematically misinformed`` about the effects of nuclear war. The level of destruction has been ``severely underestimated`` because of lack of systematic oversight of the ``insulated bureaucracies`` that provide analyses of ``limited and `winnable` nuclear war``; the resulting ``institutional myopia can be catastrophic,`` far more so than the manipulation of intelligence on Iraq.

The Bush administration slated the initial deployment of a missile defense system for summer 2004, a move criticized as ``completely political,`` employing untested technology at great expense. A more appropriate criticism is that the system might seem workable; in the logic of nuclear war, what counts is perception. Both US planners and potential targets regard missile defense as a first-strike weapon, intended to provide more freedom for aggression, including nuclear attack. And they know how the US responded to Russia`s deployment of a very limited ABM system in 1968: by targeting the system with nuclear weapons to ensure that it would be instantly overwhelmed. Analysts warn that current US plans will also provoke a Chinese reaction. History and the logic of deterrence ``remind us that missile defense systems are potent drivers of offensive nuclear planning,`` and the Bush initiative will again raise the threat to Americans and to the world.

China`s reaction may set off a ripple effect through India, Pakistan, and beyond. In West Asia, Washington is increasing the threat posed by Israel`s nuclear weapons and other WMD by providing Israel with more than one hundred of its most advanced jet bombers, accompanied by prominent announcements that the bombers can reach Iran and return and are an advanced version of the US planes Israel used to destroy an Iraqi reactor in 1981. The Israeli press adds that the US is providing the Israeli air force with ```special` weaponry.`` There can be little doubt that Iranian and other intelligence services are watching closely and perhaps giving a worst-case analysis: that these may be nuclear weapons. The leaks and dispatch of the aircraft may be intended to rattle the Iranian leadership, perhaps to provoke some action that can be used as a pretext for an attack.

Immediately after the National Security Strategy was announced in September 2002, the US moved to terminate negotiations on an enforceable bioweapons treaty and to block international efforts to ban biowarfare and the militarization of space. A year later, at the UN General Assembly, the US voted alone against implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and alone with its new ally India against steps toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. The US voted alone against ``observance of environmental norms`` in disarmament and arms control agreements and alone with Israel and Micronesia against steps to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East--the pretext for invading Iraq. A resolution to prevent militarization of space passed 174 to 0, with four abstentions: US, Israel, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. As discussed earlier, a negative US vote or abstention amounts to a double veto: the resolution is blocked and is eliminated from reporting and history.

Bush planners know as well as others that the resort to force increases the threat of terror, and that their militaristic and aggressive posture and actions provoke reactions that increase the risk of catastrophe. They do not desire these outcomes, but assign them low priority in comparison to the international and domestic agendas they make little attempt to conceal.

Noam Chomsky is a Professor of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT. In addition to Hegemony or Survival, America`s Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books), he is the author of numerous books on linguistics and on U.S. foreign policy.

[Reader`s Note: The footnotes to the well-sourced "Afterword" to the paperback edition of Hegemony or Survival have been removed from this version. An expanded version of the afterword is also available as part of an expanded e-book version of Hegemony or Survival.] Reprinted by arrangement with Metropolitan Books, an imprint of Henry Holt and Company, LLC

Copyright C2004 Aviva Chomsky, Diane Chomsky and Harry Chomsky

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Published on Friday, September 17, 2004 by OneWorld.net
Independent Election Observer Team Arrives in US
by Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON - A team of 20 independent democracy experts from 15 countries and five continents has arrived in the United States in order to observe this year`s presidential election campaign.

The election monitors, who have been brought here by the San Francisco activist group "Global Exchange," will be fanning out in the coming days initially to research how the election preparations are being conducted in five states. They will then return just before the actual polling November 2.

The five states include Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Missouri, and Georgia. According to Global Exchange, Florida was selected due to the controversy that erupted there in the 2000 elections; Georgia because it is one of only two states where voters will use only touch-screen voting machines.

Arizona was picked because elections there are publicly financed, while Missouri was the scene of widespread reports of Republican efforts to suppress the black vote in 2000. Ohio was also of interest because it is expected to be one of the most hotly contested battleground states in this year`s election.

"Many of us in this room have worked for many, many years in different situations and in different countries," said Brigalia Bam, one of the observers who also chairs South Africa`s Independent Electoral Commission at a press conference at the National Press Club Thursday. "It is that experience that has brought us to the United States." She said all elections should be assessed by the degree to which they are "responsive, transparent, and fair."

Other observers, with similar qualifications, hail from Argentina, Australia, England, Canada, Chile, Ghana, India, Ireland, Mexico, Nicaragua, Philippines, Thailand, Wales and Zambia.

The Global Exchange group, which hopes to meet with local and state election authorities, as well as with civic groups that are also involved in getting out the vote and ensuring a fair election, is not the only international team that will be observing the November elections.

The State Department last month invited formally invited an observer delegation from the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a 55-nation body that encourages all member countries to observe each others` elections.

State Department officials stressed that the OSCE delegation will not have the authority to assess the fairness of the vote, but it will be expected to issue a report on any problems or shortcomings as part of a new program for all OSCE members.

That invitation drew praise from more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers who had asked UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to dispatch observers to the November elections earlier this summer.

In a letter to Annan, which the UN subsequently referred back to Powell, the lawmakers said they were concerned about the possibility of irregularities in the 2004 balloting.

"Given the deeply troubling events of the 2000 election, the growing concerns about the lack of necessary reforms and potential abuse in the 2004 election," the lawmakers wrote, "we believe that the engagement of international election monitors can be the catalyst to expedite the necessary reform, as well as reduce the likelihood of questionable practices and voter disenfranchisement on Election Day."

The letters drew outrage from many Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives. They promptly attached an amendment to the 2005 foreign-aid bill banning the use of any of that money to finance UN monitoring of the election.

"For over 200 years, this nation has conducted elections fairly and impartially, ensuring that each person`s vote will count," said Rep. Stephen Buyer during debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. "Imagine going to your polling place on the morning of November 2 and seeing blue-helmeted foreigners inside your local library, school or fire station."

The delegation invited by Global Exchange said they were less likely to be watching specific polling places on Election Day as they were to be examining the larger process, particularly with respect to the possible disenfranchisement of voters.

"The potential for minority and specific groups to be disenfranchised, that`s certainly ...a concern that needs to be closely looked at," said David MacDonald, a former Minister of Communications and Secretary of State under Progressive Conservative governments in Canada.

Several of the Global Exchange observers stressed that U.S. officials should not be offended by their presence. "I think it`s productive that America should also invite observers because, if we judge ourselves, we wouldn`t be judged," said Damaso Magbual, deputy secretary general of the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) in the Philippines.

"We may think we are the best, (but) it`s always best to have others see to have others see it from an outside perspective, to find out how things are," he noted.

"In all places, there is a need for sharing experiences, and there is always room to improve," said Horacio Boneo, an Argentine professor who has taken part in electoral assistance and observation in more than 60 countries and is one of the United Nations` top advisers on elections.

Global Exchange said the delegation marks the first major effort by a non-governmental organization (NGO) to monitor U.S. election processes. A spokesman added that some counties with which the group had made contact had invited the observers to meet with election officials and even attend tabulation centers on Election Day, while in other cases - notably Miami`s Dade County - no response has been forthcoming.

``I don`t think they have anything they particularly want to hide from us," said Bam, who will be part of the team to be sent to Florida.

© Copyright 2004 OneWorld.net

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Back to regular view
http://www.suntimes.com/output/greeley/cst-edt-greel17.html

Print this page

Terror `war` doesn`t meet definition

September 17, 2004

BY ANDREW GREELEY

Is there really a clash of civilizations? Or are we entering the Third World War? Or the Fourth World War? Such are the models and metaphors being proposed to cope with the horror of the mass murders at Beslan in Russia. The American Right (as in the Wall Street Journal) proposes the first. Russian leadership proposes the second. The Vatican`s Cardinal Renato Martino proposes the third. The last also agrees with Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and Attorney General John Ashcroft that nations must give up many of their liberties to engage in these conflicts.

Each model is both an exaggeration and a dangerous (self-) deception. Arab armies are not moving on Tours, the Turks are not closing in on Vienna, the Crusaders are not attacking Jerusalem. Neither side is forcing conversions on the other side. Nor are massive armies moving back and forth across Europe with tens of millions of casualties, as in the two real world wars. Cities are not being destroyed in hideous air attacks. Women are not being raped by the millions. The Cold War, nasty and unpleasant as it was, did not involve any of these horrors, despite Cardinal Renato Martino.

What, in fact, is happening? Small bans of religious fanatics are killing relatively small numbers of innocent people -- small compared with the casualties of the Great Wars. These are terrible events, but Islam is not engaged in open conflict with the West. Many Islamic leaders denounce the killings. Most Muslims do not approve of the killings. Islam is not the enemy; only a very small number of very dangerous Muslims.

Most Muslims don`t like America. However, it is not, as President Bush inanely says, that they want to destroy our freedom (Ashcroft will do that, given enough time). The reason, as the Muslims see it, is our oppression of the Palestinians and more recently the Iraqis. Our great ``war`` leader has been too busy with other things to deal with the Palestinian mess. Yet there is no more critical challenge in the struggle against terrorists.

Indeed, the metaphor ``war on terror`` is exaggerated and misleading. In fact it is a struggle against fanatical terrorists. If the word ``war`` is used to describe the horrific American Civil War AND the current struggle against terrorists (to say nothing of the ``war on drugs,`` the ``war on pollution,`` etc.), then the word has lost all meaning. Moreover, ``terrorism`` is an abstraction, while terrorists are specific people and specific organizations. ``War on terror`` is useful only to persuade the American people that Bush is a wartime president and to justify the foolish and now dangerous war in Iraq.

The United States enjoyed extraordinary goodwill all over the world in the months after the World Trade Center attack. That would have been the time to fashion an international alliance against terror and to bring the best strategic minds together to plan the struggle.

Russia would certainly welcome such an alliance now, but it is too late. Indeed, the United States is blamed because it has negotiated with Chechnya leaders. The State Department, in the finest spirit of Bush`s unilateralism, says that it will talk to whomever it wishes.

However, the president assures us that the invasion of Iraq is part of his successful war on terrorism and the country is safer because of the invasion. He does not address the question whether some of the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in Iraq might have better been spent on assuring the safety of our ports (only 2 percent of the containers coming to America are screened) and our commuter trains and buses. These kinds of targets are simply waiting for al-Qaida to attack. The war in Iraq, therefore, destroyed any chance for a major universal alliance against terrorists, created thousands more terrorists and diverted money from authentic homeland security.

Language shapes thought. The abuse of language leads to abuse of thought. Many of the presuppositions of American policy are the result of sloppy thinking. However, exaggerated and deceptive language is very useful in the political game, especially if you want to present yourself as a strong leader in time of war.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistribute

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Ein Thema, das den meisten nicht so bewußt ist, ist die mögliche Besetzung von Richtern beim Supreme Court der USA. In den letzten Jahren sind beim Supreme Court Richter nur von konservativen Präsidenten eingesetzt worden, weil Clinton m.E. keine Nominierung durchgebracht hat. Das gilt natürlich auch für andere Gerichte, für die der Präsident ein Vorschlagsrecht hat. Diese Vorschläge müssen vom Senat noch bestätigt werden, aber Bush hatte in der letzten Zeit bei einigen Fällen sich eine Ausnahmereglung aus der Postkutschenzeit zu Nutze gemacht, die eine vorläufige Einsetzung von Richtern möglich macht. Bush hat zwei Hardliner neueingesetzt und der nächste Prädident hätte die Möglichkeit 3 Richter neu zu besetzen. Was das für die US-Gesellschaft bedeuten würde, wenn Bush noch weitere drei Richter einsetzen könnte, beschreibt der folgende Artikel. Auch ein höchstes Gericht sollte eine Gesellschaft darstellen, und von Bush eingesetzte Richter, würden diesem Anspruch nicht entsprechen, sondern die Gerichte in eine fundamental-religiöse Ecke stellen. Das kann für die Entwicklung einer Gesellschaft nicht gut sein.

Published on Friday, September 17, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Missing: A Media Focus on the Supreme Court
by Norman Solomon


The big media themes about the 2004 presidential campaign have reveled in vague rhetoric and flimsy controversies. But little attention has focused on a matter of profound importance: Whoever wins the race for the White House will be in a position to slant the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court for decades to come.

Justices on the top court tend to stick around for a long time. Seven of the current nine were there a dozen years ago. William Rehnquist, who was elevated to chief justice by President Reagan, originally got to the Supreme Court when President Nixon appointed him a third of a century ago. The last four justices to retire had been on the high court for an average of 28 years.

Vacancies are very likely during the next presidential term. Rehnquist, 79, is expected to step down. So is Sandra Day O`Connor, 74, a swing vote on abortion and other issues that divide the court in close votes. Also apt to retire soon is 84-year-old John Paul Stevens, who usually votes with the more liberal justices. "The names of possible Bush or Kerry appointees already are circulating in legal circles," the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported in August, "and there is virtually no overlap between the lists."

There should be no doubt about the kind of Supreme Court nominee that President Bush would want. "In general what he`s going to look for is the most conservative Court of Appeals judge out there who is young," says David M. O`Brien, a professor of government who has written a book about the Supreme Court. "Those are the top two priorities."

Bush has made clear his intention to select replacements akin to hard-right Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Writing in the Washington Times on Sept. 14, conservative attorney Bruce Fein predicts that "the winner of the impending presidential sweepstakes will likely appoint from one to three new justices." He foresees that if Bush wins on Election Day and the seats held by O`Connor and Stevens become vacant, "constitutional decrees in pivotal areas concerning presidential war powers, church-state relations, freedom of speech, the death penalty, the powers of the police and prosecutors, racial, ethnic and gender discrimination and private property will display a markedly more conservative hue."

Some political agendas benefit from the claim that the Supreme Court`s 1973 abortion-rights decision, Roe v. Wade, is not in jeopardy. But as Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University, wrote this summer, "three justices -- Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas -- remain committed to overturning Roe. Meanwhile, two of the Court`s three oldest members -- justices Stevens and O`Connor -- are part of the six-justice majority for recognizing a constitutional right to abortion. Should President Bush have the opportunity to name anti-Roe successors to these two justices -- or to any two or more of the six justices who oppose overturning Roe -- there is little reason to doubt that he would seize it. The result would be a Supreme Court majority for eliminating the constitutional right to abortion."

Though Bush and Kerry are inclined to understate the importance of potential new Supreme Court picks as they try to attract swing voters, Professor Dorf is unequivocal: "A Bush victory will greatly increase the likelihood that Congress and the state legislatures will be able to ban most abortions at some point in the next four years. In contrast, a Kerry victory will almost surely preserve the status quo of legal abortion prior to the third trimester of pregnancy."

Already, Bush`s impacts on the judiciary have been appreciable. Like the members of the Supreme Court, the federal judges on appeals and district court benches are appointed for life -- and in less than four years, Bush has chosen almost a quarter of all those judges nationwide.

Dahlia Lithwick, a legal analyst with Slate, notes that "Bush has already had a chance to massively reshape the lower federal bench. He`s now filled 200 seats" -- with judges who`ll have far-reaching effects. "He has certainly put a lot of people onto the federal bench who have sort of litmus tests on issues like abortion, on issues like civil rights. And I think we are going to see -- in the far future, but not today -- the fallout of a massive, massive influx of quite conservative jurists who`ve been put on the bench in the last four years."

As opponents of abortion rights, civil liberties, gay rights and other such causes work to gain a second term for George W. Bush, they try not to stir up a mass-media ruckus that might light a fire under progressives about the future of the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary. Likewise, those on the left who don`t want to back Kerry even in swing states are inclined to dodge, or fog over, what hangs in the balance. Kerry is hardly a champion of a progressive legal system, but the contrast between his centrist orientation and the right-wing extremism of the Bush-Cheney regime should be obvious. It`s too easy to opt for imagined purity while others will predictably have to deal with very dire consequences.

"The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is huge," Noam Chomsky said in a recent interview with David Barsamian. "There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they`re shafting them in their economic and social policies, you`ve got to make them think you`re doing something for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don`t have that constituency. They would like to have it, but they`re never going to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference."

Chomsky added: "These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says `I don`t care if Bush gets elected` is basically telling poor and working people in the country, `I don`t care if your lives are destroyed. I don`t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don`t care, because from my elevated point of view I don`t see much difference between them.` That`s a way of saying, `Pay no attention to me, because I don`t care about you.` Apart from its being wrong, it`s a recipe for disaster if you`re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative."

Norman Solomon is co-author, with Reese Erlich, of "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn`t Tell You." His columns and other writings can be found at www.normansolomon.com.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
CHANGING TERMS OF DEBATE, KERRY CALLS BUSH A LYING COKEHEAD

Blow, Snow Dominate New Stump Speech

Attempting to change the terms of the debate in the 2004 presidential campaign, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) came out swinging today, asking a Michigan audience, “Do you really want four more years of that lying cokehead?”

Saying that a second Bush administration would subject the nation to “four more years of blow and snow,” Mr. Kerry unleashed his most savage attack on the president to date, accusing Mr. Bush of spending the federal surplus on a $40,000-a-day cocaine habit.

“Where did the surplus go? I’ll tell you!” thundered Mr. Kerry, who then mimed inhaling a line of cocaine to the delight of the partisan crowd.

Mr. Kerry’s decision to accuse Mr. Bush of “snorting foo-foo dust” and “tooting racehorse charlie” seemed to be inspired by the new unauthorized book about the Bush family penned by celebrity biographer Kitty Kelley, who coincidentally was named to the Axis of Evil today.

But just minutes after Mr. Kerry accused Mr. Bush of “hitching up the reindeers,” Vice President Dick Cheney returned fire, telling an audience in West Virginia that if Mr. Kerry is elected, the Earth will spin off its axis and collide with the sun.

After being told of Mr. Cheney’s latest dire prediction, Mr. Kerry chuckled, “I guess George Bush isn’t the only one in the White House who’s horning the Peruvian lady!”

In other campaign news, President Bush told reporters today that he “doubted” that the Texas National Guard memos discovered by CBS last week could be authentic because “I know exactly where the real ones are hidden.”

**** BOROWITZ REPORT LIVE SEPT. 28 ****

Andy takes over the Marquee Theater in lower Manhattan for one night only, Tuesday, Sept. 28 at 8 PM. Special guests include comedy superstar Jonathan Ames (Late Show With David Letterman). 356 Bowery (between Great Jones and East 4th). Tickets only $5; for more info call 212-664-2957.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Eine gute Aussage von einem Pollster aus einem anderen Artikel:
"One of the things that is pretty clear from all of the polls, that seems to be very consistent, is that Bush had a very good convention, that his support has increased and that he is probably leading Kerry,`` said Michael Traugott, a University of Michigan professor and author on the subject of polls.
Der Berg kreißte und gebar eine Maus.

September 18, 2004
Bush Opens Lead Despite Unease Voiced in Survey
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER

Senator John Kerry faces substantial obstacles in his bid to unseat President Bush, with voters saying he has not laid out a case for why he wants to be president and expressing strong concern about his ability to manage an international crisis, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Less than seven weeks before Election Day, Americans continue to think that the nation is heading in the wrong direction and are distressed about how Mr. Bush has handled the economy. Yet the president, apparently lifted as much by what Mr. Kerry has done wrong as by what Mr. Bush has done right in the campaign, has an eight-point lead among registered voters, the poll found.

In one particularly troublesome sign for Mr. Kerry, a majority of voters said he was spending too much time attacking Mr. Bush and talking about the past, rather than explaining what he would do as president. In contrast, half of the registered voters said Mr. Bush had offered a clear vision of what he wanted to do in a second term.

That finding, combined with an rising unfavorable view of Mr. Kerry, underlines the complicated challenge the senator confronts as he tries to attack Mr. Bush without alienating voters put off by negative campaigning.

Mr. Kerry`s problems have apparently been deepened by the relentless attacks on his Vietnam War record by a group of Vietnam veterans supported by backers of Mr. Bush. Three-quarters of respondents said they were aware of the advertisements produced by the group, many of which involved accusations unsupported by official records; of those, 33 percent called the accusations "mostly true."

More than 60 percent of respondents said Mr. Kerry was either "hiding something" or "mostly lying" in discussing his service in Vietnam. At the same time, 71 percent said that Mr. Bush was "hiding something" or "mostly lying" about his Vietnam era service in the National Guard, which has been the subject of questions about how he got a coveted out-of-combat assignment, and whether he fulfilled the required service.

Sixty percent of respondents said they did not have confidence in Mr. Kerry to deal wisely with an international crisis; that is a jump from 52 percent in June. By contrast, 48 percent said they were uneasy with Mr. Bush`s ability to manage a foreign crisis.

For all of that, there are signs that the election remains competitive, and that the upcoming debates could prove pivotal to Mr. Kerry`s hopes. Respondents said they were unhappy with Mr. Bush`s handling of the economy and of Iraq, and said his policies had increased the cost of prescription drugs and decreased the number of jobs.

About 80 percent of respondents said that Mr. Bush was either "hiding something" or "mostly lying" in talking about the war in Iraq. A plurality of voters disapproved of how he had managed the war. But the disapproval was not as sharp as it was before the handover of power to an Iraqi government in June, even though Mr. Kerry has turned up his attacks on Mr. Bush`s handling of the war and the American death toll recently passed 1,000.

A plurality said Iraq had produced more casualties than originally expected.

This poll and several others in recent days with differing findings have suggested that the electorate is in flux. Alternatively, the different results may reflect how difficult it is to poll a closely divided public, particularly when answering machines, caller identification devices and cellphones make people harder to reach on their home telephones.

For example, a Pew Research Center poll and a Harris Interactive poll released on Thursday found the race tied. A Gallup poll made public that same day found that Mr. Bush had a lead of 8 points among all registered voters, and 13 points among who Gallup said were likely voters.

Still, the Times/CBS Poll suggested that Mr. Kerry faced a challenging six weeks. The percentage of Americans who said Mr. Kerry had exhibited strong leadership qualities dropped eight points since summer to 50 percent; by contrast, 63 percent said Mr. Bush had exhibited strong qualities of leadership.

And on the issue that Mr. Kerry once hoped to ride to the White House - the economy - he is not faring much better than Mr. Bush. A slight majority, 51 percent, said they were uneasy with Mr. Kerry`s ability to make the right decisions about the economy, compared with 56 percent who said the same about Mr. Bush.

Over all, the Times/CBS Poll found that Mr. Bush had the support of 50 percent of registered voters, compared with 42 percent for Mr. Kerry. Among those who said they were likely to vote, Mr. Bush led 51 percent to 42 percent. When Ralph Nader was included, Mr. Bush led by 50 percent to 41 percent among registered voters, with Mr. Nader drawing 3 percent.

Mr. Kerry`s advisers said they thought the lead was probably closer to 2 or 3 points, while Mr. Bush`s aides said it was around 5 points.

The Times/CBS nationwide telephone poll of 1,088 registered voters was conducted Sunday through Thursday. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus three percentage points.

Matthew Dowd, a senior Bush adviser, said Mr. Kerry faced a difficult challenge in trying to turn the race around by November.

"They would have to defy history at this point," Mr. Dowd said. "No incumbent has lost with a lead like this and a job approval in the 50`s, post-Labor Day."

The percentage of Americans who said they approved of Mr. Bush`s job performance reached 50 percent, the highest since March; that is up slightly from 45 percent just before the Democratic convention in July.

A senior Kerry adviser, Joe Lockhart, said he did not think Mr. Bush had a significant lead, pointing to the Pew and Harris Interactive polls. He said that Mr. Kerry had begun laying out his plans for the future .

"I think he has spent this week talking about the present,`` Mr. Lockhart said. "The public is very concerned about where the country is going in and it`s both important to be straightforward about the problems we have, which the president has chosen to ignore or gloss over, and talking about what we are going do to about them."

The poll found that 61 percent of respondents expected Mr. Bush to win the election this fall; in March, shortly after Mr. Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination, just 44 percent thought Mr. Bush would win.

By any measure, Mr. Bush is proving to be a resilient candidate who may defy some historical trends. He has gained an advantage over Mr. Kerry even as polls show people are unhappy with the direction the country is heading. Mr. Bush`s advisers have long argued that many Americans, in an election being held under the shadow of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, are less apt to blame the president for the nation`s heading in the wrong direction.

Mr. Kerry`s difficulties at communicating a defining message - something that Democrats have urged him to do for months - was reflected both in the poll and in follow-up interviews with respondents.

"I don`t feel I have a clear enough picture of Mr. Kerry`s agenda,`` said George Adair, 50, a Democrat and utilities manager from Alabama. "I think Mr. Kerry has worked against himself in that area by making such an issue of his Vietnam War record, and that has backfired mightily. I don`t know that what happened 30 years ago in either gentleman`s case has much to do with their ability as president.``

Mary Crawford, 81, a Democrat from Lakeland, Fla., said she intended to vote for Mr. Kerry because she thought Mr. Bush had taken the nation in the wrong direction. But she remained concerned that Mr. Kerry had not spelled out why he was running.

"I believe that Kerry truly wants to see employment and business back in the United States helping the people here," she said. "I think Kerry believes that it`s necessary for people to have health insurance. I think Kerry could explain it better."

There were signs that the Republicans had achieved some success in trying to undercut Mr. Kerry`s credentials on fighting terrorism.

Half of all registered voters said they had a lot of confidence in Mr. Bush`s ability to protect the nation from another terrorist attack, while 26 percent said they had some confidence. By contrast, 26 percent had a lot of confidence in Mr. Kerry`s ability to protect the nation from another terrorist attack; 37 percent said they had some confidence.

More problematic, Mr. Kerry has lost ground among women, a decline that campaign aides attributed to Mr. Bush`s ability to undercut Mr. Kerry on terrorism at his convention. In July, 52 percent of women supported Mr. Kerry and 40 percent Mr. Bush; in this latest poll, Mr. Bush had a 48 percent to 43 percent lead among women voters.

The poll findings suggested that Mr. Kerry has been hurt by the attacks from the group of Vietnam veterans, known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, not only because they questioned his war record but also because they threw a spotlight on antiwar Senate testimony he gave when he returned from Vietnam.

Jim Rush, 57, an independent voter from Texas, said: "His testimony came after some heavy fighting over there, and you wonder where his real patriotism is, Is it self or is it country? It points to his basic character, and I`ll just leave it at that."

Mr. Bush`s campaign has denied any involvement in the advertisements, but 42 percent of the respondents who were familiar with the ads said they believed the White House had a hand in them.

Fred Backus contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 18, 2004
VICTIMS
Caught in Rebels` Cross Hairs: Iraqis Working for Americans
By SABRINA TAVERNISE

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 16 - One by one, they are dying. Gunned down on the highway on their way to work. Shot point-blank in front of their homes. Cornered in their cars.

Iraqis who work on American military bases are on the front lines of a secret war being waged by the country`s violent insurgency. The killings are highly personal. Gunmen come to the homes and neighborhoods of the employees -interpreters, cleaners, clothes washers and carpenters - and shoot, often from expensive cars with expensive guns.

The killings, less visible than the high-profile kidnappings but just as lethal, single out Iraqis and send a chilling message not to cooperate with the Americans. They are crimes that the police, so overwhelmed with daily violence, rarely even bother to investigate. It is hard to say how many have died this way.

The American military does not release figures, nor do the American contractors that employ many of the workers. But in just the Dora neighborhood in southern Baghdad, based on figures from two local police stations as well as interviews with family members, 12 to 14 workers have been killed since early August. Three of them died in the last 10 days.

Just as startling are the numbers of interpreters killed. Since January, about 52 have died in Baghdad, Falluja and Ramadi, a person familiar with the death count said. More than 45 of the deaths were in Baghdad.

"There`s been a spike in the last three months," said the person, who insisted on anonymity.

Even so, Iraqis continue to work for the Americans. Jobs are scarce, and interpreters can earn $400 to $500 a month, a healthy wage in Iraq. Even the $150 a month the laundry workers earn is much sought after.

The slayings have terrorized neighborhoods. In the Dora neighborhood, a wave of killings began in June, when five people in a minivan riding to work at an American base were hit and killed by a mortar round. In another incident there, three people were shot to death as they were negotiating a taxi ride to work in the morning.

"They were killed because they were working with the Americans," said Rima Yusef, a relative of a 21-year-old laundry woman who was one of the victims. Another of the victims, a 25-year-old named Dureid, was on his way to his first day of work as a clothes washer, his mother said.

"There are so many, so many," who have been killed, Ms. Yusef said.

Interpreters, who are often out on patrols with American soldiers, face a particular risk, because of the highly public nature of their jobs. During the reporting for this article, for example, both the interpreter and the driver received death threats.

"It`s getting really dangerous," said an interpreter named Wael, who left his job at Forward Operating Base Falcon in Dora last month, because of the mounting risk. His boss, he said, "meets Sheiks, imams and officials."

"I have to meet those people every day," he said. "I don`t know who to trust."

Some do not even tell their own families where they are employed, to keep relatives from worrying. Ziad, an interpreter who works for the Ministry of Defense, said he tells his family that he works in a private company. His sister was forced to quit her job at the American-run Baghdad airport, when their mother discovered she was working there.

Families of the victims are tormented by thoughts of who did the killing.

"Until now, I don`t know why," said Muhammad, 59, an English teacher whose son Dureid worked for an American contractor and was shot to death in August in an upscale neighborhood in Baghdad. "That`s what makes it terrifying."

Patterns in the killings provide a few clues. The gunmen are often well dressed and approach the victim while driving, victims` family members said. The car of choice is a BMW, Mercedes or Opal. The weapon is often a 9-millimeter MP5 submachine gun, which is easily hidden and commonly used on soft targets like hostages.

Sometimes they give warnings. Zeena, a 31-year-old interpreter who worked on an American base in western Baghdad and was shot to death in December, had been warned twice. Once a letter was dropped at her house, telling her to quit. Later, a homemade bomb was left at her door. She refused to leave her $450-a-month job, and paid a steep price.

The ride to work in the morning can be far more dangerous than the job itself. Zeena was cornered by two cars just a few blocks from her house as she drove to work early one morning. Gunmen sprayed her car with bullets. She escaped and ran from them. But when she banged on gates, frantically to try to get inside a house, no one opened the door, her family said.

An elderly man stepped in front of her, her mother said, but was ordered by the gunmen to step away. He survived. Zeena was found by her mother in a sitting position with seven bullets in her body, her back against one of the gates she tried to enter.

At Falcon, the biggest danger is the entrance to the base, workers said. Employees suspect that the gate is being watched, and a number of the shootings have taken place along the road leading up to it, a lonely stretch of highway that is the only access for Iraqi employees. A notebook with names and addresses of the base`s interpreters was found in a car that was stopped along the road last year, said Wael, citing reports from the base.

"That highway, it`s the place people get killed," said Layla, a 23-year-old interpreter whose brother, Keis, was shot to death on the road on Sept. 7 as he was driving home from his job at the Falcon base.

One wrong move on the road can be lethal. Wael`s school friend Atimad, also an interpreter at the base, was killed when she decided to take a taxi after her uncle could not come to fetch her. Five men in a white Kia parked in front of the cab killed her, he said.

"They grabbed her out of the car, shot her and just left her there," Wael said. "No one could do anything about it."

In all, Wael counted five close friends at the base who had been shot and killed since May. A sixth from a different base was shot and killed in front of his house on the night of Sept. 10, he said.

"We used to say, `Oh God, you`ve got to be kidding,` " he said of his colleagues` reactions to the news that someone they know had been killed. "Now, we`re used to it."

"When someone tells me my friend got killed," he added, "I`d just say he was a good guy. That`s it. Nothing more."

Interpreters expressed deep disappointment with the way the American military and their main employer - the Titan Corporation - has handled the danger. Interpreters are referred to as "terps," and are replaced in a seemingly endless flow of manpower as soon as they are killed.

[An American military spokesman said Friday that legal restrictions "do not allow us to pay compensation to Iraqi civilians who work on our base and are killed off base by criminals."

["We do everything we can to protect soldiers and innocent civilians working on our base," said the spokesman, Maj. Philip Smith of the First Cavalry Division.

[A Titan Corporation spokesman said Friday that the company had no comment.]

Layla said she begged administrators at the American-run hospital in central Baghdad to admit her brother, who was alive after being shot but whose condition was rapidly deteriorating because he was being treated in an ill-equipped Iraqi hospital.

She said she was told that she had to collect her brother`s documents before he could be admitted. But there was not enough time, Layla said, and her brother died a short time later.

"I`ve been working for them for about a year and a half," she said. "I wasn`t asking for a house, for a visa, for a trip abroad. I was just asking them to save a life.

"He works for theAarmy washing soldiers` clothes, and they can`t save a life."

In the case of Atimad, "she`s just gone," said Wael, who described the attitude at the base as: "We can easily get another one. There are 3,600 of them."

"They say they care about you, but they don`t," Wael said.

Layla said she would continue as an interpreter in the International Zone, an area in central Baghdad that is the base of the American administration here. She is looking for a room there, to avoid the high risk of having to travel in and out.

Her two brothers, however, quit their jobs with Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, last week.

Wael agreed.

"I`m not going anymore," he said. "I`m done. They keep calling every three or four days. I just want them to leave me alone."

Zainab Hussain and Thaier al-Daami contributed reporting from Baghdad for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 18, 2004
Intentions Versus Reality in Iraq

For months, President Bush has been playing down the findings of David Kay, the first American arms inspector, who debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein had possessed a hoard of weapons of mass destruction ready to use at any moment. He urged Americans to wait for the verdict of Mr. Kay`s successor, Charles Duelfer. That verdict is now at hand, and it only strengthens the case against Mr. Bush`s main reason for waging preventive war against Iraq. Iraq was not an imminent or urgent threat, and Mr. Duelfer`s report undermines the idea that it was even a "gathering threat," as Mr. Bush now routinely describes it. It more likely was a diminished power, hit hard by two wars and a decade of sanctions, that may have still harbored ambitions to develop new weaponry if the opportunity arose.

Full details of what Mr. Duelfer and his Iraq Survey Group have found will not be known until their report, almost 1,500 pages long in draft form, is approved and an unclassified version is released. But the general thrust was made clear in an article in The Times yesterday by Douglas Jehl, based on descriptions by government officials who have read all or part of the report or been briefed on it.

The central finding is the continuing lack of evidence that Iraq had any large-scale programs to make illicit weapons. We have known that, of course, ever since Mr. Kay said so late last year. He said it again when he stepped down in January. But Mr. Duelfer cited the many obstacles impeding the search and expressed a determination to dig harder to be sure. Now he, too, has apparently come up mostly dry. He has found facilities that might be converted someday from civilian production to make biological or chemical weapons, but no conclusive evidence, officials say, that they were actually being used to make weapons.

The most specific evidence of an illicit program was apparently a network of clandestine laboratories operated by the Iraqi intelligence service. Those laboratories, first mentioned by Mr. Kay, have now been thoroughly inspected. They look small-bore indeed, capable of producing only small quantities of chemical or biological agents that might be useful in assassinations or perhaps in research far removed from weapons production. That is hardly justification for preventive war.

The one place where Mr. Bush`s team will find some small comfort- and it`s certain to seize on it - is on the issue of Iraq`s intentions. Analysts have long assumed that Mr. Hussein wanted to build nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and would have done so when sanctions were lifted and international inspectors left his country. The American survey team seems to have concluded, based on documents and interviews with Iraqis that have not been made public, that this was not just a vague desire but rather a clear intent.

It`s hard to see what difference those clear intentions could have made in a country whose industrial structure had been devastated, whose weapons programs had been eviscerated and whose leader may not have had a clear idea of what was going on in his own military forces - and a country that was also under the microscopes of United Nations inspectors.

But Mr. Bush will no doubt highlight this aspect of the report to justify the invasion. Republicans argue that the international consensus to keep Mr. Hussein boxed in with sanctions and inspections was eroding, making the invasion necessary to forestall the graver threat of a rearmed Iraq. But with no evidence emerging that Mr. Hussein posed an urgent threat, and with the situation deteriorating badly in Iraq, that calculus is flawed.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Es gibt keine Problem mit Touch Screen Wahlmaschinen, wenn sie einen Papierstreifen zu Kontrolle ausdrucken, wie bei Vorwahlen in Nevada festgestellt.

September 18, 2004
They Said It Couldn`t Be Done

Many computer scientists insist that electronic voting machines will be trustworthy only when they produce paper receipts that can be audited. But supporters of electronic voting have long argued that doing so would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Nevada proved the naysayers wrong this month, running the first statewide election in which electronic voting machines produced paper records of votes cast. Election officials across the country now have no excuse not to provide systems that voters can trust.

There is a growing body of evidence indicating that electronic voting machines are vulnerable to tampering and to software glitches that can skew the vote totals. The best safeguard is a voter-verifiable paper trail, receipts that are printed out during the voting process. Voters can view the receipts to check them against the choices they made on the computer screens. Each receipt remains under glass and, after the vote is cast, falls into a locked box. The receipts can be used in a recount or an audit to check the accuracy of the machine tallies.

The main argument against voter-verifiable paper trails is that they are impractical. At a May meeting of the federal Election Assistance Commission, and again at the National Association of State Election Directors` summer conference, local election officials denounced the campaign for voter-verifiable paper records. At both events, critics waved a receipt about three feet long, saying one that big would be needed for Los Angeles County`s lengthy ballot.

But Nevada`s secretary of state, Dean Heller, has always believed that paper records are practical, and this month he proved it. Primary voters across the state cast votes on machines that printed out paper records, and none of the nightmarish possibilities came to pass. The poll workers had no trouble with the technology. And election officials had spare machines and printers on hand in the few cases when printers jammed or had other mechanical problems.

Conditions in Nevada favored success. The turnout was light, and the ballot was short enough that the receipt was only about five inches long. But there is no reason to believe that paper trails could not work in any election. Alfred Charles, a vice president of Sequoia Voting Systems, which made the machines used in Nevada, says that if the receipts are done properly, listing only the candidates and referendum choices that the voter actually selects, length should not be a problem, and it is unlikely that even Los Angeles County would require anything like three-foot-long paper receipts.

Even if Nevada`s approach - attaching printers to touch-screen machines - had failed, there would still be other ways to provide a paper record. Probably the best solution is the optical scan system used now in many jurisdictions, where voters mark paper ballots that are then read by computers. In optical scan systems, the paper ballots the voters fill out can be retained and used as a check against the machines` tallies.

Nevada has taken the lead on paper trails not only in its own elections, but also in Congress. Its senators - John Ensign, a Republican, and Harry Reid, a Democrat - have co-sponsored the bipartisan Voting Integrity and Verification Act, one of a number of pending bills that would require that all electronic voting machines produce voter-verifiable paper trails. Congress should pass such legislation right away so all Americans can have the same confidence in their elections as Nevadans now have.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 19, 2004
FRANK RICH
This Time Bill O`Reilly Got It Right

IF a stopped clock is right twice a day, why shouldn`t Bill O`Reilly be right at least once in a blue moon? When Fox News`s most self-infatuated star attacked CNN for keeping James Carville and Paul Begala as hosts on "Crossfire" after they had joined the Kerry campaign, he fingered yet another symptom of the decline and fall of the American news culture. "In the wake of the vicious attacks on Fox News for allegedly being `G.O.P. TV,` I expected the media to brutally dismember CNN and the new boys on John Kerry`s bus," Mr. O`Reilly wrote in his syndicated column. "But instead it`s been the silence of the lambs from the press. Can you say media bias?"

Yes, you can, though it must be said in the same breath that Mr. O`Reilly is only half-right. Fox News isn`t "allegedly" G.O.P. TV — it is G.O.P. TV. The campiest recent example of its own bias came during the Republican convention when Mr. O`Reilly played host to two second-tier G.O.P. publicity hounds, Georgette Mosbacher and Monica Crowley, as they whined that a straight-ahead, unexceptional convention photo spread that they had voluntarily posed for in New York magazine wasn`t flattering enough. Presenting no evidence whatsoever, the two women (one of whom, Ms. Crowley, doubles as a Fox "analyst") bantered darkly with Mr. O`Reilly about how this "dirty trick" to present unglamorous portraits of them and such luminaries as Henry Kissinger and Al D`Amato was a conspiracy of "radical" and "Upper West Side" Democrats. (We all know what Upper West Side means, ladies.) This was G.O.P. TV raised to not-ready-for-prime time self-parody, lacking only the studio audience to yuk it up.

But is the response to an ideological news network like Fox an ideological news network with a liberal slant of its own? CNN, the inventor of 24/7 news, once prided itself on being a straight shooter. Now it and Mr. Carville have argued that the line wasn`t blurred here because the liberal "Crossfire" hosts are unpaid, loosey-goosey Kerry advisers and their show is an opinion-mongering screamfest, not a news program. One might also add that with its 4:30 time slot, "Crossfire" has of late been seen only by shut-ins and barflies. Yet as CNN continues its ratings free-fall, humbled by Fox and occasionally by MSNBC as well, "Crossfire" remains one of its few signature brands. No matter how long the overlap between Mr. Carville and Mr. Begala`s TV and campaign roles, that brand and CNN itself are now as inextricably bound to the Democrats as Fox is to the Republicans. The network has succeeded in an impossible feat — ceding Mr. O`Reilly the moral high ground. The Bush campaign doesn`t have to enlist Fox hosts for its staff since they`re willing to whore for it without even being asked.

CNN is hemorrhaging in quality and viewers so fast — for reasons that have more to do with its lugubriousness and identity crisis than politics — that this dust-up may prove but a footnote to its travails. But its casual abandonment of even a fig leaf of impartiality ratifies a larger shift in the news landscape that reached its historical watershed at the Republican convention. That was when Fox News for the first time scored a ratings victory over every other network, the Big Three broadcast networks included.

Fox`s feat has since been trivialized by most of its rivals as the inevitable triumph of a partisan channel speaking to its faithful. But there`s something else at work here. It`s not just that Fox is so good at pandering to its core constituency but that its competition is so weak at providing the hard-hitting, trustworthy news that might draw an alternative crowd. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes aren`t stupid. They have seized upon that news vacuum in the marketplace and filled it with fast-paced, news-like bloviation that can be more entertaining (and often no less informative) to watch than its rivals even if its bias gives you heartburn.

What much of the other news media have offered as an alternative has not been an alternative at all. At some point after 9/11, the news business jumped the shark and started relaying unchallenged administration propaganda — though with less zeal and showbiz pizazz than Fox. The notorious March 2003 presidential news conference at which not a single probing question was asked by the entire White House press corps heralded the broader Foxification to come. As Michael Massing, a frequent critic of this newspaper and others, put it on PBS`s NewsHour, the failure of the American news media to apply proper skepticism to the administration`s stated rationale for war in Iraq is "one of the most serious institutional failures of the press" since our slide into Vietnam. Mr. Massing attributes some of this to the fear of challenging a president then at the height of his popularity. Whatever the explanation — and there are many, depending on the news organization — the net effect was that the entire press came off as Fox Lite. The motive to parrot the administration line may not have been ideological, as it was at Fox, but since the misinformation was the same, news consumers can`t be blamed for finding that a distinction without a difference.

The W.M.D. flimflam was hardly the last time that government propaganda supplanted journalism. Though the chagrined major newspapers have since worked hard to compensate for their prewar lapses, the electronic media that give most Americans their news have often lagged behind, especially cable. From Jessica Lynch to "Mission Accomplished" to, most recently, the bogus charges of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, there is a tendency to give administration-favored fiction credibility first, often cementing the spin into fact well before the tough questions are asked (if they`re ever asked). It`s a damning measure of the news media`s failure to provide a persuasive dose of reality as an antidote to Washington fairy tales that so many Americans came to believe that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, not Saudis. A Newsweek poll just two weeks ago shows that 42 percent of Americans (among them, 32 percent of Democrats) still believe that Saddam was "directly involved" in the 9/11 attacks.

Writing in The Los Angeles Times, Ben Wasserstein dissected the Swift boat controversy as a case in point of how the process works in the right-wing press. After The Washington Post reported on Aug. 19 that the military records of one of John Kerry`s principal Swift boat accusers, Larry Thurlow, "contradicted Thurlow`s version of events and confirmed Kerry`s," the scoop was either ignored entirely or distorted beyond recognition by The New York Post, The Wall Street Journal editorial page and every Fox News talking head except one (John Kasich). From there, it was off to the races. Once Fox sets the agenda, and its allies in the administration, talk radio and the Internet ride herd, its rivals want to get in on the act, if only out of ratings envy and sheer inertia. Though the best-selling "Unfit for Command" was the work of a longtime Kerry antagonist and a writer best known for his anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic comments on a right-wing Web forum, its facts were challenged on TV at a far slower pace than the books of Seymour Hersh and Kitty Kelley, whose reporting was targeted in advance by administration talking points handed out before the books could even be read.

In this environment, even a beloved right-wing anecdote of flyweight content, like Teresa Heinz Kerry`s "shove it!," can overwhelm all other headlines in the 24/7 news ethosphere. Afghanistan, tumbling into chaos, has all but fallen off the TV map. So to some extent has Iraq. How many Americans know just how much of the country has been ceded to the insurgents? Perhaps only Armageddon there or in North Korea can change the subject from George W. Bush`s National Guard career, a story that has been known since The Boston Globe first reported it in May 2000, and whose embarrassing outline would remain the same even if "60 Minutes" had never done its piece.

Any sideshow that can turn the press itself into the subject, whether it`s about typewriter fonts or "Crossfire" hosts doing double duty on the Kerry campaign, serves an administration that would like to distract attention from its defeats in the current war, from Abu Ghraib to Fallujah to Tora Bora. When the press isn`t creating its own embarrassments, the administration will step in to intimidate and undermine journalists who don`t regurgitate its approved narrative. That impulse was most nakedly revealed when a principal architect of the administration`s Iraq policy, Paul Wolfowitz, blamed bad news from the occupation on the cowardice of reporters too "afraid to travel" beyond Baghdad to gather all the festive developments. (Mr. Wolfowitz later apologized, but only after he had been repeatedly chastised for slurring the some 30 reporters who had been killed covering his war.)

Between the White House and Fox`s smears of the mainstream press and the mainstream press`s own scandals and failings of will, the toll on the entire news media`s position in our culture has been enormous. A Pew Research Center survey published in June found that the credibility of all news sources is low, in some cases falling precipitously since the start of the Bush administration: major newspapers, the broadcast networks, the cable news networks and PBS alike.

The news about the news could well get worse. One media critic, Tom Rosenstiel, believes we`re seeing the end of network news altogether as its audience slips more and more into the Depends demographic and its corporate masters cut back its air time and budgets. His theory will be tested soon enough when the first of the Big Three anchors, Tom Brokaw, retires at NBC after the election. Mr. Brokaw`s successor is Brian Williams, now most famous for the ridicule rightly heaped on him by Jon Stewart for his inability to articulate a single question for Al Sharpton during a live interview at the Democratic convention. The future of ABC News could also soon be in play, depending on who succeeds Michael Eisner at Disney — and under what fiscal imperatives from its board.

Should network news ride into the sunset, bargain-budgeted 24/7 cable will inherit the news franchise in our TV culture. That would be the final victory for Fox News. The only hope for a successful alternative is not to fight Fox`s fire with imitation Fox fire in the form of another partisan network but to reinvent the wheel with a network that prizes news over endless left/right crossfire. Against the backdrop of what looks to be an indefinite war, there might even be a market for it. In the meantime, Carville and Begala, in keeping with the self-immolating tradition of the Kerry campaign, have handed the Bush campaign and its Fox auxiliary one hell of a gift.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 18, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
A War Hero or a Phony?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

So is John Kerry a war hero or a medal-grabbing phony?

Each time that I`ve written about President Bush`s dalliance with the National Guard, conservative readers have urged me to scrutinize the accusations against Mr. Kerry. After doing so over the last week, here`s where I come out:

Did Mr. Kerry volunteer for dangerous duty? Not as much as his campaign would like you to believe. The Kerry Web site declares, "As he was graduating from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam - because, as he later said, `It was the right thing to do.` "

In fact, as Mr. Kerry was about to graduate from Yale, he was inquiring about getting an educational deferment to study in Europe. When that got nowhere, he volunteered for the Navy, which was much less likely to involve danger in Vietnam than other services. After a year on a ship in the ocean, Mr. Kerry volunteered for Swift boats, but at that time they were used only in Vietnam`s coastal waters. A short time later, the Swift boats were assigned exceptionally dangerous duties up Vietnamese rivers. "When I signed up for the Swift boats, they had very little to do with the war,`` Mr. Kerry wrote in 1986, adding, "I didn`t really want to get involved in the war."

Did Mr. Kerry get his first Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound? That`s the accusation of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who say that the injury came (unintentionally) from a grenade that Mr. Kerry himself fired at Viet Cong. In fact, nobody knows where the shrapnel came from, and it`s possible that the critics are right. It`s not certain that the Viet Cong were returning fire. But the only other American on the boat in a position to see anything, Bill Zaldonis (who says he voted for Mr. Bush in 2000) told me, "He was hurt, and I don`t think it was self-inflicted."

Did Mr. Kerry deserve his second and third Purple Hearts? There`s not much dispute that the second was merited. As for the third one, the Swift Boat Veterans` claim that he received it for a minor injury he got while blowing up food supplies to keep them from the enemy. But documents and witness accounts show that he received a shrapnel wound when South Vietnamese troops blew up rice stores, and an injured arm in a mine explosion later that day.

Did Mr. Kerry deserve his Bronze Star? Yes. The Swift Boat Veterans claim that he was not facing enemy fire when he rescued a Green Beret, Jim Rassmann, but that is contradicted by those were there, like William Rood and Mr. Rassmann (a Republican). In fact, Mr. Rassmann recommended Mr. Kerry for a Silver Star.

Did Mr. Kerry deserve his Silver Star? Absolutely. He earned it for responding to two separate ambushes in a courageous and unorthodox way, by heading straight into the gunfire. Then he pursued one armed fighter into the jungle and shot him dead. According to Fred Short, a machine gunner who saw the event, the fighter was an adult (not the half-naked teenager cited by the Swift Boat Veterans) who was preparing to launch a grenade at the boat. "Kerry went into harm`s way to save the lives of the guys on the boat," Mr. Short told me. "If he hadn`t done that, I am absolutely positive I would not be here today." Mr. Kerry`s commander said he had wanted to give him an even higher honor, the Navy Cross, but thought it would take too long to process.

Did Mr. Kerry exaggerate his exploits? Yes. For example, he has often said over the years that he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia as part of the secret war there. Others who served with him confirm that on Christmas Eve 1968 (not Christmas Day) he got very close to the border, and possibly even strayed across it. But it doesn`t seem to have been, as Mr. Kerry has suggested, a deliberate incursion into Cambodia.

What do those who served with him say? Some who served on other boats have called Mr. Kerry a hypochondriac self-promoter. But every enlisted man who was with Mr. Kerry on various boats when he won Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars says he deserved them. All praise his courage and back his candidacy. "I was there for two of the Purple Hearts and the Bronze and Silver Stars, and he earned every one of them," said Delbert Sandusky, in a typical comment. "He saved our lives."

The bottom line? Mr. Kerry has stretched the truth here and there, but earned his decorations. And the Swift Boat Veterans, contradicted by official records and virtually everyone who witnessed the incidents, are engaging in one of the ugliest smears in modern U.S. politics.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Into the abyss
The week Iraq`s dream of peace fell apart
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad

18 September 2004

Where freedom was promised, chaos and carnage now reign. A suicide bomber in a car blows himself up in the heart of Baghdad killing 13 people. Air raids by US near the city of Fallujah kill scores more. And so ends one of the bleakest weeks in Iraq`s grim recent history.

Between them, suicide bombers targeting Iraqi police and US air strikes aimed at rebels have killed some 300 Iraqis since last Saturday - many of them were civilians. The escalating violence throws into doubt the elections planned for January and the ability of the US and interim Iraqi government to control the country.

The repeated suicide-bomb attacks and kidnappings in the centre of Baghdad are eroding whatever remaining optimism there might be about the success of the government of Iyad Allawi, the Prime Minister, in restoring order in an increasingly fragmented country.

Violence and abductions are ensuring that even tentative efforts at economic reconstruction have ground to a halt. Earlier in the week, the US diverted $3.4bn (£2bn) of funds intended for water and electricity projects to security and the oil industry. Many Iraqi businessmen and doctors have fled to Amman and Damascus because of fear of being taken hostage. The abduction of one British and two American contractors this week will make it very difficult for any foreigners to live in Baghdad outside fortified enclaves.

Yesterday, a car packed with explosives blew up near a row of police cars blocking off a bridge in the centre of the Baghdad. Police tried to get the bomber to stop but he drove on into the middle of the parked cars. "I saw human flesh and blood in the street, then I fled," said Mouayed Shehab.

There are big markets in this part of Baghdad on Friday including a famous book market in al-Muthanabi Street where booksellers cover the road with books they want to sell. A few hundred yards away, there are markets selling everything from spices to birds and guard dogs. Police fired shots into the air to force shoppers to flee.

The police had blocked the bridge over the Tigris as part of an attempt to seal off Haifa Street - a focal point of violence in recent days - on the western side of the river where US and Iraqi forces were involved in a search operation and gun battles had been fought earlier in the morning. Haifa Street, with its modern tower blocks and old alleys, is a notorious Sunni Muslim neighbourhood where US forces are frequently ambushed. It is also only a few hundred yards from the Green Zone, the headquarters of the US and Iraqi interim government.

The security forces arrested 63 suspects during their sweeps of Haifa Street including Syrians, Sudanese and Egyptians. They also claimed to have discovered caches of arms, though that does not necessarily mean very much in Iraq where almost all families own one or more guns.

Yet the horrors have spread way beyong the capital. Early yesterday, police found the body of a Westerner with blond hair which had been pulled from the Tigris river at Yethrib village, 40 miles north of Baghdad. He was tall, well built, had his hands tied behind his back and had been shot in the back of the head. The description does not match any of the Western hostages known to be held by kidnappers.

And, of course, Iraqis suffer. The US Air Force has stepped up its policy of trying to assault insurgents from the air while the army avoids ground attacks that could lead to heavy US casualties. In this case, the air strikes were against a compound in the village of Fazat Shnetir 12 miles south of Fallujah. The US military said they had attacked a meeting of militants loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi planning fresh attacks on US forces.

The residents of Fazat Shnetir were later seen digging mass graves to bury the bodies in groups of four. A health ministry spokesman, Saad al-Amili, said that 44 people were killed and 27 injured in the Fallujah attacks with 17 children and two women among the wounded. The floor of the Fallujah hospital was awash with blood. Relatives cried out with grief and called for vengeance.

The truth about who is being killed by the US air strikes is difficult to ascertain exactly because Islamic militants make it very dangerous for journalists to go to places recently attacked. Bodies are buried quickly and wounded insurgents do not generally go to public hospitals. But, where the casualties can be checked, many of those who die or are injured have proved to be innocent civilians.

The surge of violence in the past week is making it less likely there will be free elections in January as promised by George Bush. Elections themselves may not guarantee a way out of the quagmire. Should they not happen though, there are likely to be more weeks like these.

* The family of a British engineer, kidnapped by gunmen from his house in Baghdad two days ago, pleaded for his safe return last night. Kenneth Bigley, believed to be 62 and married with one child, was seized with two other US colleagues by militants during a dawn raid.

His family have been contacted by the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who explained to them what is being done "to resolve the situation".


18 September 2004 12:40


©2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Saturday, September 18, 2004
War News for September 17 and 18, 2004

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

Bring ‘em on: One US Marine killed in fighting in al-Anbar province.

Bring ‘em on: Thirteen Iraqis killed, 50 wounded by car bomb in Baghdad.

Bring ‘em on: Twenty-three Iraqis killed by car bomb at Iraqi army headquarters in Kirkuk.

Bring ‘em on: Three Iraqis killed, three wounded in US air strike in Fallujah.

Bring ‘em on: Iraqi working for British troops in Basra assassinated.

Bring ‘em on: Kidnapped governor of al-Anbar province executed by insurgents.

Bring ‘em on: Nine Iraqis killed by mortar fire in Baquba.

Bring ‘em on: Iraqi oil official survives assassination attempt near Mosul; four bodyguards killed.

Bring ‘em on: Two American, one British contractor kidnapped by insurgents in Baghdad.

Bring ‘em on: Insurgents execute three Iraqi truck drivers transporting US supplies.

Bring ‘em on: British troops raid al-Sadr’s offices in Basra.

Bring ‘em on: One Iraqi killed, two wounded by roadside bomb in Baghdad.

British officer sounds off. “Colonel Tim Collins, the British commander whose stirring speech to his troops on the eve of the Iraq invasion was reportedly hung on a wall in the Oval Office by George Bush, has criticised the British and US governments over the war. The officer, who has now left the Army, condemned the lack of planning for the aftermath of the conflict and questioned the motives for attacking Iraq. He said abuses against Iraqi civilians were partly the result of ‘leaders of a country, leaders of an alliance’ constantly referring to them as the ‘enemy ... rather than treating them as people.’ This attitude was inevitably adopted by some soldiers on the ground, he said.”

Now THIS is what I call a re-enlistment incentive. “Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq. Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity.”

No good options.

But, according to the US military`s leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush`s war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn`t found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it`s worse, he`s lost on that front. That he`s going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It`s lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we`re on, we`re achieving Bin Laden`s ends."

Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We`re conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It`s so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."

Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true. There`s no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan."

W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College`s strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: "I don`t think that you can kill the insurgency". According to Terrill, the anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.

"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they`re all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view."




Kofi Annan sounds off. “But Mr. Annan`s radio interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation on Wednesday, in which he said for the first time that he believed the war was ‘illegal,’ set off a tempest of reaction and raised questions in a number of capitals about why he had chosen that moment to adopt more muscular language about the war. Iraqi officials are irritated by the timing of Mr. Annan`s remarks, diplomats said, as Iraq`s interim government struggles to organize its first elections in the face of a tenacious insurgency. His statements will be seen as a signal of wavering international support, they said. Mr. Annan also made clear his reservations about elections. ‘You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now,’ he said.”

Intelligence estimate. “The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.”

Oil sabotage. “The sharp rise in attacks on Iraq`s oil pipelines in recent weeks has substantially impaired the country`s production, dealing a blow to the economy and threatening the struggling reconstruction effort, U.S. and Iraqi officials say. Insurgents are bombing pipelines and other parts of Iraq`s oil infrastructure almost daily, another sign that the country`s security situation is deteriorating beyond the control of U.S. military and Iraqi security forces.”

Reservists may get extended again. “Under current law, under a partial mobilization order, they cannot be involuntarily activated for more than 24 cumulative months. The Pentagon is considering seeking a change to the law to limiting it to 24 consecutive instead of cumulative months, which would allow the military to call mobilize and demobilize Reserve and Guard forces indefinitely. But that option likely will further demoralize a force already facing a possible mass exodus of troops leading to retention and recruitment woes in the next few years, the GAO study states.”

Grudge match.

Foreign Office documents marked "secret and personal" reportedly warned the Prime Minister that British and coalition troops would need to remain in the country for "many years" following any military intervention.

The documents are also said to contain claims that US President George W Bush was pushing for war to complete his father’s "unfinished business" and described it as a "grudge match" against Saddam Hussein.

The papers, allegedly sent to the Prime Minister by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw a year before the war began, also advised that Mr Blair would have to "wrong foot" the Iraqi dictator into giving the allies an excuse for war.

But it is the nature of the warnings about a post-war Iraq, which has seen the deaths of more than 900 allied troops since the war ended, that is likely to cause most embarrassment in London and Washington.

The reports, from papers leaked to the Daily Telegraph, claim Mr Straw predicted a post-war Iraq would cause major problems, telling Mr Blair that no-one had a clear idea of what would happen.

And he questioned the US claims that an invasion would eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction, saying "no one has satisfactorily answered how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better."



Commentary

Editorial: “Bush has known of the National Intelligence Council`s report since June. The situation in Iraq has only confirmed the assessment since. The disconnect between the reality on the ground and what Bush is telling the American public doesn`t merely put in question Bush`s credibility. It raises the disquieting possibility that Bush has lost sight of reality in Iraq, that his vaunted ‘ability to make a decision,’ as Vice President Dick Cheney describes it, has become more important than his ability to correct the wrong decision.”

Editorial: “Increasingly, it becomes clear that the Bush Iraq strategy put too much emphasis on military power and not enough on the political and cultural issues that are roiling the country. The damage is approaching irreparable. The president ought to stop proclaiming that everything is going to be OK in Iraq and start talking about a strategy for getting Americans out of a place where they are less welcome every day.”

Editorial: “Cheney`s comparisons Thursday between current events in Iraq and the United States` 13-year struggle for a constitution and democratically elected government following the Declaration of Independence are naive, except as a reminder of how hard people will fight to evict foreign troops. Nor is there much evidence to support Bush`s claim that Iraq now has a strong prime minister. The president`s enthusiasm for elections in January is genuine, but if the security situation stays this bad, meaningful balloting will be impossible.”

Analysis: “After 18 months of occupation, the US continues to grope in the dark. Its technical intelligence agencies find themselves totally helpless in the absence of the use of modern means of communications by the terrorists and resistance fighters. Its human intelligence (HUMINT) agencies are as clueless as ever, despite their claimed capture of dozens of alleged terrorists and resistance fighters. Their interrogation, despite the use of shocking techniques of mental and physical torture, has hardly produced any worthwhile intelligence. One does not need a mole in the US intelligence to know this. Had there been any worthwhile intelligence, one would have seen the results on the ground.”

Analysis: “Well into his third month in office, Allawi has little to show for his overtures to Sunni and Shiite insurgents. His offer of amnesty has found no takers; his emergency powers to deal with resistance have apparently failed to deter anyone. The perception of Allawi as America`s puppet is ever more entrenched as he embarks next week on his first official trip to the West.”

Opinion: “The ordnance destroys homes and automobiles and the pitiful possessions of the dispossessed, and it creates even more recruits to the war against the Americans. You blow up my house and kill my mother, and I will soon be waiting on a rooftop with an AK-47 and an RPG launcher and hatred in my heart for all Americans. This is why the main emphasis in counter-insurgency warfare is, or should be, on the political side of political-military operations. This is why there can be no purely military solution in Iraq. This is why, until and unless some political solution is found, Americans and their allies will continue to be maimed and killed in Iraq on a daily basis.”

Opinion: “But putting Allawi on a pedestal -- especially if it is to burnish a political campaign -- underlines the dangers of basing policy on image and a war strategy on any one individual. The administration rushes past the dubious history of U.S. involvement with Third World ‘strongmen’ eager to praise benefactors and crush opponents. Graveyards in African or Asian jungles, as well as on the French Riviera, are filled with allies deemed indispensable by past U.S. presidents. More significantly, the administration papers over widening inconsistencies in Allawi`s approach to his country`s main population groups and to the rule of law in Iraq. With U.S. acquiescence, he ignores the Transitional Administrative Law when that interim constitution is inconvenient for his purposes. His vaguely defined role in ordering U.S. troops into battle in the new "pol-mil" plan that is being pursued in Baghdad also causes confusion.”

Casualty Reports

Local story: Guam Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: California soldier killed in Iraq.

Local story: Illinois Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: Georgia soldier killed in Iraq.

Local story: California soldier killed in Iraq.

Local story: Wisconsin Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: Washington D.C. Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: Texas Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: Washington State soldier killed in Iraq.

Local story: Tennessee Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: Maryland soldier wounded in Iraq.

Local story: North Carolina soldier wounded in Iraq.

Local story: Three Wisconsin soldiers wounded in Iraq.

Local story: Illinois contractor killed in Iraq.


86-43-04. Pass it on.



# posted by yankeedoodle : 4:35 AM
Comments (3) | Trackback (0)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

How can you hold elections amid all this savagery?

The pattern of violence has changed. The US and interim government have diminishing control

Patrick Cockburn:

09/18/04 "The Independent" -- `In Iraq, there`s ongoing acts of violence but freedom is on the march," said President George Bush breezily earlier in the week.

No it isn`t. The violence is getting worse by the day, and freedom is visibly on the retreat. The US and the interim Iraqi government do not have full control of almost any Iraqi city or town outside Kurdistan. The insurgency is spreading. Iraqis speak of their country fragmenting into competing centres of power like Lebanon in the 1970s.

From afar, it may seem that violence in Iraq is now endemic. Every day, there are similar television pictures of the bloody aftermath of US air strikes, suicide bombs, street fighting and ambushes on American forces.

But the pattern of violence has changed significantly, and for the worse, in the last six months. A year ago, fighting was mainly confined to Sunni Muslim districts in the provinces around Baghdad. Now attacks are being made on US forces across the country. August was the first month in which more US soldiers were killed and wounded by Shia fighters than by Sunni guerrillas.

The US and the interim government have diminishing control even in central Baghdad. This week, the US army was reduced to using rocket firing helicopters for crowd control in Haifa Street a few hundred yards from the Green Zone, the American and Iraqi government headquarters. Insurgents replied with their own atrocity in the same place when a car bomb ripped through a crowd of aspirant policemen queuing for jobs killing 47 of them.

The savagery of the latter attack, in which Iraqis alone were killed, might be supposed to lead to greater support for the government. But when I spoke to the maimed survivors in hospital afterwards, they either believed that they had been hit by a missile fired by an American aircraft or they asked why the insurgents were killing Iraqis when they should be killing Americans.

Last year, Iraqis were divided in their attitude to the occupation and to armed resistance. Today it is difficult to meet Iraqis who do not support the attacks on the Americans.

Ominously the guerrillas are getting more efficient. Last week, there was an expert attempt to assassinate the governor of Baghdad in which gunmen attacked his speeding convoy from in front and behind. His driver tried to escape by turning down a side street. The assassins had guessed he would do so and in the side street a large bomb was waiting to explode.

The government of Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, is like a small man with a very big bodyguard, in this case the US army and airforce.

By using the American armed forces the government can blast its way into any town or city in Iraq. But US military power in Iraq does not turn readily into political strength. The government`s Iraqi political base is small and it has not grown larger since the interim government took power on 28 June.

The US is trying to extend the interim government`s authority by use of its air power. It is a counter-productive method. Military spokesmen announce precision air strikes against "terrorists" while Iraqis are watching satellite television pictures of wrecked ambulances and wounded children.

Why is the US so clap-handed in Iraq? The main reason is probably that the final decision-makers in the US are much more interested in who holds power in Washington than what happens in Baghdad. The outgoing Marine Corps general Lt James T. Conway has made clear that he was bitterly opposed to the decisions first to besiege Fallujah, radicalising its people, and then to hand it over to the insurgents. In both cases the impact on the US presidential election seems to have been the only concern of the White House.

In present circumstances it will be impossible to hold elections which have any meaning in Iraq. Iraqis will not recognise as fair an election in which the ballot box is strapped to the back of a US tank. If Sunni Muslim provinces do not take part but Shia districts do, then divisions between the two communities will only deepen. "I`m sure the result of the elections will be a photocopy of the interim government. They are Americans who speak Arabic," said a Fallujah shopkeeper.

The elections could only succeed if all Iraqis are convinced they are free and fair. This would only happen if there was a conference of all communities and powerful groups in Iraq, including the Sunni and Shiah insurgents, to agree on ground rules. But this would require the US and the interim government to admit that they are only two of many powers in Iraq and this they show no sign of doing.

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Ich hatte gestern schon etwas reingestellt von der Seite über die Seriosität der Polls.
In der Zwischenzeit sind dazu einige weiteren Artikel erschienen. Diese Diskussion wurde ausgelöst durch die großen Abweichungen der Ergebnisse bei den einzelnen Instituten.
Auf der Seite sind einige Links, deshalb den Link zur Homepage benutzen.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep18.html

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 211 Bush 327

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]


News from the Votemaster

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. When you ask a question to 250,000 people, you might just get 250,000 replies. Keep that in mind if that situation ever arises. But boy, do I know a lot about cell phones now. More about that below.

Six new polls today, but nothing really spectacular. A Research 2000 poll in Illinois gives Kerry a 15% lead, much closer to the conventional wisdom than the 4% lead I had yesterday. Bush appears to be increasing his lead in Missouri. It was 2% but is now 7%. Finally, in the 7-day Rasmussen tracking poll in Ohio, Bush is slightly ahead again, but within the margin of error.

As I have pointed out before, the states with a white core on the map are all tossups. To get an idea of where we really stand, you should add the strong and weak numbers for each candidate in the legend (there is no room on the map for these values and doing two sums a day will keep your mind sharp). Doing this, we see Bush is ahead 244 to 190, with 104 votes in the electoral college up for grabs. While 54 votes is a decent lead, it could easily wiped out by a change in the tossup states with 104 EVs. Another way of looking at this is to check the Barely Kerry and Barely Bush numbers in the legend. Bush is credited with 83 votes in the electoral college that he doesn`t have in the bag while Kerry is credited with only 21. This means that a tiny shift towards Bush will not cost Kerry much but a tiny shift towards Kerry will cost Bush a lot. Nevertheless, there is no question that if the election were held today, Bush would win. For the election on Nov. 2, it is still a tossup.

Continuing on yesterday`s theme of whether polls mean anything in the world of cell phones, let me first thank all the people who took the time to respond, in some cases at great length. Let`s start the story at the beginning. How do pollsters decide who to call? The simplest way to get a random sample is to pick the area code and exchange to be sampled and have the computer dial the last four digits at random. In the trade this is called RDD--Random Digit Dialing. It is very easy to do but unfortunately has some problems. Many numbers will be business phones, hospitals, police stations, teenagers, and other undesirables. Also, with number portability, the pollster may be getting Manhattan, KS instead of Manhattan, NY. Consequently, RDD is not used much any more.

Instead, pollsters buy lists of phone numbers. In some states, the government sells voter lists. In other states, lists of residential customers can be purchased from telephone companies. Commercial companies also sell lists. There are many sources. These are commonly used. Pollsters do not want to call cell phones for several reasons: First, cell phone users may be in meetings, restaurants, cars, or other places where they are not free to talk. Second, since cell phone users are usually paying for air time, they don`t want to waste it and might break off half way, resulting in a useless interview. Third, that number in Colorado the pollster called may actually be a student who took her cell phone to college in California. Fourth, sound quality may be poor and questions or answers may be misunderstood.

Fifth, and most important, it might cost the pollster a lot of money: automated calling of cell phones is illegal in the United States and there is a substantial fine for breaking the law. US Code Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I, Sec. 227 reads:

It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States--
(A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice--

(iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or service for which the called party is charged for the call.

On the positive side, pollsters are exempt from the "Do not call" list, but most people do not know that.

But using land lines is no bed of roses either. Many people use caller ID or their answering machine to do call screening. Busy young professionals are rarely home from work before 11 p.m. whereas lonely old people are only too happy to talk to the nice young girl who seems to care about what they think. Calls made at 2 p.m. are going to oversample housewives, and so on. All these effects lead to biases. To correct for them, pollsters conduct exit polls of voters leaving the polling place on election day to get a good idea of the statistical make up of the electorate for next time. These data are used to correct the polls. For example, if the exit polls show that 10% of the voters in some state are African Americans and in a state poll of 600 people by accident only 30 are African Americans (5%), the pollster can just count each African American twice. This process is called normalization. It was proposed for use to correct undercounts in the 2000 census but was rejected by the courts on the gronds that the constitution calls for an "enumeration" of the population, not a statistical model of the population.

Exactly what to normalize for is a controversial issue. Should the pollster make sure his poll has the statistically correct number of Catholics, gun owners, retirees, veterans, immigrants, union members, millionaires, welfare mothers, fat people, lesbians, and [fill in your favorite category]? Where do you draw the line? More specifically, should the pollster normalize to make sure the effective number of Democrats and Republicans is correct? Some pollsters do and some do not. And how many is correct? Gallup is currently normalizing to 40% Republicans and 33% Democrats which some pollsters think is highly unrealistic, which explains why Gallup`s polls show Bush doing so well.

As we reported earlier, in an extraordinary step, both John Zogby and Scott Rasmussen criticized Time and Newsweek for also having too many Republicans in their samples. Zogby said: "If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000." Thus a score of Bush 52%, Kerry 40% doesn`t necessarily mean of the 1000 pollees, 520 will vote for Bush, 400 will vote for Kerry and 80 will vote for someone else or are undecided. It might mean this is the result of weighting the Republican votes to force them to represent 40% of the sample.

Now getting back to Breslin`s column, in theory he is right that pollsters will miss people who have only a cell phone, but of the 169 million cell phones, most have a land line as well. It is estimated that 5% of the population is cell only. And most of these don`t live in battleground states. And then an effect occurs only if cell-only users differ from land line users in their political preference. Thus the error introduced by missing the cell-only customers is probably smaller than the error introduced by missing the overseas voters. But it is there and in a close election, it could matter. Here is Zogby`s response to Breslin`s column. Robert Landauer wrote a good piece on the accuracy of polling is his Aug. 31 column. Worth a look.

In the future, when many more people cut the cord, the effect will become so large it can no longer be ignored. New polling methods will be required. In this respect, Zogby is a pioneer with his e-mail polls. Of course, these have a similar selection effect--not everybody has a computer. To get around this effect Zogby normalizes the results, but has the same normalization problems everyone else does. Although the mathematics of statistical sampling are rock solid, the methodological concerns of how to get a truly random sample of the target population (assuming you can figure out what the target population is) loom large.

What is the target population, anyway? In principle it is the people who will vote for president on Nov. 2. But how do pollsters know who will vote? Most pollsters have a screen designed to guess which registered voters will vote and which will sit it out. The formulas used for screening vary from pollster to pollster and are usually top secret. Some pollsters report two scores, those among all registered voters and those among likely voters. (Unregistered voters don`t count, so it you are not registered, hurry up and register.) The media tend to focus on the likely voters, but as Albert R. Hunt points out in his article in the Wall Street Journal Sept. 17, "What if the Polls are Wrong," that is probably not the best predictor. Specifically, he writes: "In 2000, Gallup`s, election eve survey showed George Bush ahead by two points among likely voters; he trailed Al Gore by a point among registered voters, very close to the final outcome." If using registered voters has better predictive value, even on election eve, I think people should pay more attention to it and less to the likely voters, especially when every pollster has his own homebrew formula for determining likely voters. Henceforth, when I have access to the registered voter results, I will use those in preference to likely voters, but when the pollster only reports likely voters, I will use those results. While this mixes apples and oranges, the fact that every pollster uses his grandmother`s secret receipe for divining likely voters, means we already had fruit salad. Also, both sides are so worked up this year that everyone expects all kinds of unlikely people to vote, wreaking havoc with the old models for determining likely voters. Applying this new rule today for the first time, I put Bush a tad ahead in Pennsylvania because the Keystone Poll has him ahead by 2% among RVs although he is tied among LVs, with a MoE of 4%.

With Gallup now going from "the Gold standard" in polling to being highly controversial, many people are asking how much they can trust the various pollsters. For this reason, I have introduced a new feature to this website starting today: separate maps for each of the major pollsters. These maps will be accessible via the More data page. While it would be technically possible to allow users to produce personal custom maps excluding user-selected pollsters, the workload of generating 250,000 custom maps every day would bring the server to its knees, so I can`t offer this feature. Sorry. However, the spreadsheet offers a close second choice. If you download the daily Excel spreadsheet and search for pollsters you don`t trust and then add a couple of points to the Kerry or Bush column as you wish, the spreadsheet has been programmed to recompute the new electoral college score. All you have to do is enter the new numbers in the gray columns.

Although it is 7 years old, Gallup`s FAQ on polling is still useful reading.

It has been a long story today, but understanding the limitations of polling is very important. It is my own feeling that the mass media don`t have a clue. They keep harping on the national polls, which are only peripheral, and rarely, if ever, discuss the normalization for political party issue discussed above. They give the (highly misleading) impression that a score of, say, 49% to 41% means that 49% of the people polled were for the former candidate and 41% were for the latter. In reality, that result is the consequence of a lot of statistical massaging of the data based on a model that is rarely openly discussed.

Finally, some legal news. In a 6-1 decision, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Reform Party exists in Florida and that Nader can be on the ballot as its candidate. Nader also won a court case in Colorado, but lost in New Mexico.
Projected Senate: 48 Democrats, 51 Republicans, 1 independent To bookmark this page, type CTRL-D (Apple-D on Macintoshes). If you are visiting for the first time, welcome. This site has far more about the election than just the map. See the Welcome page for more details.

-- The votemaster

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

The Teflon presidency of George W Bush
By Ehsan Ahrari

The CNN website on Thursday reported a classified story about the US Central Intelligence Agency`s (CIA`s) National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was prepared for President George W Bush back in July. Among other things, that NIE contained two scenarios about Iraq. The optimistic one described the security situation there as remaining "tenuous" at best. The worst-case scenario pointed to a civil war, a reality toward which that country appears to be currently sliding. Even after the disclosure of that story, Bush continues to paint a rosy picture of Iraq in his public appearance. His vice president, Dick Cheney, is urging US voters to be patient. In Afghanistan meanwhile, President Hamid Karzai barely escaped an assassination attempt, when a missile shot at his helicopter and missed it.

Why is all the bad news related to Iraq and Afghanistan not yet showing its effect in the support numbers of public opinion polls ahead of the US presidential election in November? The reasons may be as quirky as the era post-September 11, 2001, through which the United States and the international community are passing. An inventory of some of these reasons is in order.

First, the Bush campaign has cornered the market on exploiting the fear factor related to the September 11 attacks on the United States, and on the dangers related to transnational terrorism that is lurking everywhere, if you hear the Republican depiction of reality. Bush`s strategy is working as a double-edged sword for him. From one side, it seems to be keeping all the criticism of his involvement in Iraq from becoming a gathering storm of support for John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee. The other side of that edge has thus far kept Kerry himself at bay in terms of adopting a strident tone of criticism of Bush`s performance related to America`s national security. It appears, however, that Kerry, upon the advice of former president Bill Clinton, has finally decided to take off the gloves and start bare-knuckle attacks on Bush, beginning this week. It will be some time before his sharpened attack will show its effect in the popularity polls one way or another.

Second, despite deteriorating security conditions in Iraq, the American people appear to be at a point when they would rather stay with Bush, unless Kerry can point to a better option for the United States in that country. He has thus far failed to do so, maybe because there aren`t any better options for the US but to stay put. And as long as the United States stays in Iraq, the voters seem to be leaning toward the known quantity (Bush), as opposed to giving an untested one (Kerry) a chance.

Third, regarding the "global war on terrorism", there appears to be no end in sight. Its intense phase may come to an end with the killing or capturing of Osama bin Laden and other leaders of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Unless that happens, it seems that US voters will find it hard to make a definite judgment about whether Bush`s performance regarding the "war on terrorism" is a success or a failure. What is certainly helping him is the fact that there has not been a terrorist attack inside the United States since September 2001. That reality is also making Kerry`s own criticism of Bush`s performance regarding the "war on terrorism" appear as a lot of election-related hooey.

When the late Ronald Reagan was president, students of US presidency had coined the term "Teflon presidency" to convey what then appeared as the invulnerability that Reagan had acquired against his critics, and even in terms of his ability to ride out major crises without losing popularity - nothing seemed to stick on his persona, thus the Teflon presidency (after a brand of non-stick coating applied to cookware). That Teflon presidency even survived the "Iran-Contra" scandal, in which some high-level White House functionaries were caught carrying out their personal foreign policy toward Iran. Reagan was not exactly totally uninvolved in that crisis, but it did not negatively affect his presidency. Now the question is whether George W Bush has developed his own version of Teflon presidency. It is hard to come up with a definitive answer, but the current trends point to the possibility that he indeed has. Just look at one bit of evidence.

When the CBS network broke the story last week that young George Bush used his family connections to get special treatment while he was in the Air National Guard in the 1970s, that story itself became embroiled in the controversy related to whether the documents used in it were real or fake. The Bush White House has thus far managed to avoid getting bogged down with supplying answers to questions regarding the specifics of what Bush actually did as a young lieutenant during the Vietnam War.

The Bush camp is still counting on his buddy, President General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, to pull off his own October surprise by capturing or killing bin Laden. It believes that such a happenstance will make Bush a shoo-in president. In the absence of that, it is hoping that the Republican rhetoric on the "flip-flop" factor of Kerry would continue to work to Bush`s advantage.

Kerry, on his part, has thus far not focused on Bush`s performance in general, and in particular on the low-gear performance of the US economy. When Bill Clinton won his first presidential term, his campaign battle cry was, "It`s the economy, stupid!" Thus far, Kerry`s lack of focus on a similar or the same battle cry has enabled Bush`s Teflon presidency to maintain an edge over him.

However, there are still more than six weeks to go before the presidential election. In the whirlpool environment of election campaigns, that is a long time that could yet see a reversal of fortune between George Bush and John Kerry.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact [e-mail] for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Sep 18, 2004
Operation enduring millstone
By B Raman

It is increasingly difficult to make sense out of what is going on in Iraq.

An unending spate of kidnappings, the like of which even Lebanon did not seen in its worst days; 26 foreign hostages already beheaded or otherwise killed and more than 20 still in captivity, one does not know where and in whose custody; more suicide car bombings per week than in the rest of the world put together in a month or even a longer period; a seemingly inexhaustible flow of volunteers for suicide missions, the like of which no other country has seen since suicide terrorism became the vogue 20 years ago; more acts of terrorism and other armed attacks per day (87 according to the latest count as against 60 in April last) than in the rest of the world put together; more civilians killed by the Americans, the terrorists and the resistance fighters since May last year than by al-Qaeda in the rest of the world since it carried out its strikes with explosives outside the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in August 1998 - that is the state of Iraq since the US-led coalition occupied the country about 18 months ago.

Nearly 150,000 coalition troops spread out across the country, more than the USSR had in Afghanistan at the height of its occupation in the 1980s; more helicopter gunships, more aircraft, more modern communication interception equipment, more arms and ammunition of the most lethal kind than ever used by the USSR in Afghanistan; more officers of the US intelligence community swarming across Iraq than the KGB ever deployed in Afghanistan; more money at the disposal of the US intelligence community than it ever had for use in its clandestine war against the Soviet Union. At the height of the Cold War, the US intelligence community, then consisting of about 12 agencies, had a total budget of about US$10 billion per annum to contend with its communist adversaries; today, with 15 agencies, it has $30 billion plus, thanks to Osama bin Laden and the horde of jihadi terrorists confronting the US in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the world. Despite all this, the US does not have a clue as to who are its adversaries in Iraq.

Resistance fighters? Terrorists? Domestic? Foreign? Al-Qaeda? Pakistanis? Chechens? Arab volunteers from other countries? Ex-Ba`athists? The sacked soldiers of Saddam Hussein`s army? Shi`ites? Sunnis? Plain criminals? US intelligence does not seem to have the least inkling of it. The more of the resistance and terrorists the US kills, the more the number of Iraqis and foreign Muslims take to arms against the US. The total number of resistance fighters and terrorists, domestic and foreign, operating in different parts of the country is estimated to have increased fourfold since the beginning of this year from about 5,000 to about 20,000, despite the estimated death of nearly 5,000, if not more, at the hands of US troops.

Is there a common command and control of this rainbow coalition of anti-US elements? If so, how does it function? Where and in whose hands is it located? Which are the organizations involved? Is there a supreme leader? There are visible and invisible enemies. Enemies like Muqtada al-Sadr, who are seen commanding and fighting for the benefit of TV cameras, and enemies like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who orchestrates terrorist incidents unseen and unnoticed. Audible and inaudible leaders. Leaders who brag and make claims. Others who operate silently.

If all the claims are to be believed, more terrorist organizations are being spawned in Iraq every month than in the rest of the world. Each with a bizarre name, the origin and significance of which nobody understands. Why did the group that kidnapped seven foreigners, including three Indians, two months ago call itself the Holders of the Black Banner? Why does the group that kidnapped a Jordanian on Wednesday call itself the Lions of the Monotheism Brigade?

One can understand their anger against the Americans. One can even understand their anger against the Indians, the Pakistanis and the Nepalis, despite the fact that their countries refrained from supporting the US occupation of Iraq. They were working for Kuwaiti, Saudi and other US-surrogate companies involved in keeping the US troops supplied. But why target two French journalists, despite the fact that France was in the forefront of the international community`s opposition to the US invasion and occupation? And that, too, for a reason (in retaliation for the ban on the use of headscarves by Muslim girls in France`s public schools) totally unconnected with Iraq.

Are al-Zarqawi and Muqtada the source of all the problems of the US? Will their elimination lead to a withering away of Muqtada`s Mehdi Army of Shi`ites and Al-Zarqawi`s Khalid Ibn al-Walid Brigade, the military wing of his Tawhid Wa al-jihad (Unification and Holy War)? Any fond hopes that they would are likely to be belied.

After 18 months of occupation, the US continues to grope in the dark. Its technical intelligence agencies find themselves totally helpless in the absence of the use of modern means of communications by the terrorists and resistance fighters. Its human intelligence (HUMINT) agencies are as clueless as ever, despite their claimed capture of dozens of alleged terrorists and resistance fighters. Their interrogation, despite the use of shocking techniques of mental and physical torture, has hardly produced any worthwhile intelligence. One does not need a mole in the US intelligence to know this. Had there been any worthwhile intelligence, one would have seen the results on the ground.

The Americans did not understand the Iraqi people before they invaded and occupied their country, deceiving themselves into believing that the Iraqis would come out and sing and dance in the streets as the Parisians did when Paris was liberated from the clutches of the Nazis. They do not understand the Iraqi people even after 18 months of occupation. They are unlikely to understand them even if the occupation extends to eternity. The ability to understand others is not part of the American psyche.

Political and military stooges midwived by intelligence agencies have never been accepted by a people. Remember what happened to the succession of made-in-the-KGB and made-in-the-CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) stooges - the Shah of Iran, the stooges of South Vietnam, Babrak Karmal and Najibullah in Afghanistan, the KGB`s stooges in Eastern Europe?

See what is happening to Hamid Karzai in Kabul - a straw ruler who is the CIA-protected monarch of all that he surveys, just a radius of a few hundred meters from his palace windows. He has no control over what is happening in the rest of the country. He does not even seem to know what is happening in the rest of Kabul outside his palace.

See what is happening to President General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Living in a make-believe world of his own, deceiving himself into believing that 96% of his people love him. And yet he needs American security experts to protect him - after the two failed attempts to kill him last December. As he struts around the world stage as the United States` mascot in the ummah, large parts of his country are burning - Karachi, Balochistan and Waziristan. South Waziristan is fast becoming Pakistan`s mini-Iraq. Every day, somebody killing somebody else. Nobody knows who is killing whom, why and for what.

See what is happening to Iyad Allawi, the self-styled interim prime minister of Iraq. He came to office with the roar of a tiger warning the terrorists and the resistance fighters that he would be their nemesis. He seems destined to disappear like the tail of a snake.

The recent escalation of terrorism and other acts of violence in Afghanistan and Iraq is not related only to the promised presidential elections in Afghanistan in October and parliamentary elections in Iraq in January - to make them impossible to hold with any degree of credibility. It is equally related to the presidential elections in the US in November.

President George W Bush is seeking re-election with the claim that his anti-terrorism front is winning. The terrorists and resistance fighters in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan`s mini-Iraq are determined to show that it is not so. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect more and more acts of terrorism and violent anti-US confrontations in Afghanistan, Pakistan`s mini-Iraq and Iraq as the US presidential elections approach.

On October 7, 2001, Bush embarked on what he thought would be his famous "war against terrorism" under the code name "Operation Enduring Freedom". The famous has turned embarrassingly infamous. Instead of enduring freedom, he has an enduring millstone around his neck, a millstone of his own creation.

It is easier to describe the grim situation facing the world today four years after Bush launched his war than to prescribe a workable way out of the tunnel in which the world finds itself trapped. How one wishes one could suggest a workable and acceptable (to the US) way out. There is only one possible solution that keeps coming to mind: at the risk of being called mad, let me suggest restoring Saddam to power and quickly withdrawing from Iraq. It is unlikely to happen. And so blood will continue to flow.

B Raman is additional secretary (retired), Cabinet Secretariat, government of India, New Delhi, and currently director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation, Chennai Chapter. E-mail: [e-mail].

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 19, 2004
U.S. Plans Year-End Drive to Take Iraqi Rebel Areas
By DEXTER FILKINS

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 18 - Faced with a growing insurgency and a January deadline for national elections, American commanders in Iraq say they are preparing operations to open up rebel-held areas, especially Falluja, the restive city west of Baghdad now under control of insurgents and Islamist groups.

A senior American commander said the military intended to take back Falluja and other rebel areas by year`s end. The commander did not set a date for an offensive but said that much would depend on the availability of Iraqi military and police units, which would be sent to occupy the city once the Americans took it.

The American commander suggested that operations in Falluja could begin as early as November or December, the deadline the Americans have given themselves for restoring Iraqi government control across the country.

"We need to make a decision on when the cancer of Falluja is going to be cut out," the American commander said. "We would like to end December at local control across the country."

"Falluja will be tough," he said.

At a minimum, the American commander said, local conditions would have to be secure for voting to take place in the country`s 18 provincial capitals for the election to be considered legitimate. American forces have lost control over at least one provincial capital, Ramadi, in Al Anbar Province, and have only a tenuous grip over a second, Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad. Other large cities in the region, like Samarra, are largely in the hands of insurgents.

Senior officials at the United Nations are concerned that legitimate elections might not be possible unless the security conditions here change. Violence against American forces surged last month to its highest level since the war began last year, with an average of 87 attacks per day. A string of deadly attacks in the past month continued Saturday, with a car bombing that killed at least 19 people in the northern city of Kirkuk. [Page 14.]

At the same time, the Americans and the Iraqi interim government appear to be giving negotiations to disarm the rebels a final chance. Members of the Mujahedeen Shura, the eight-member council in control of Falluja, said they were planning to come to Baghdad on Sunday to meet with Iraqi officials to talk about disarming the rebels and opening the city to Iraqi government control.

"Although the Americans have lied many times, we are ready to start negotiations with the Iraqi government," said Hajji Qasim Muhammad Abdul Sattar, a member of the shura.

Dr. Ahmed Hardan, a Falluja doctor who will take part in the negotiations, said that at least some members on the council might be willing to strike a deal with the Americans.

Under the proposal to be discussed, Dr. Hardan said, the guerrillas would turn over their heavy weapons and allow a military force gathered from around Al Anbar Province to enter the city. That unit would replace the Falluja Brigade, the local militia set up after the fighting in April and which was composed almost entirely of insurgents and former members of Saddam Hussein`s Baath Party. It was routed by the insurgents, and the Iraqi government disbanded it this month.

The Iraqi government will also demand that the insurgents turn over their heavy weapons and that foreign fighters leave the city.

Similar negotiations, also at the threat of force, appear to have borne some fruit in the city of Samarra. American military forces entered the town last week for the first time in months and are hoping they can ultimately restore Iraqi government control there before the elections.

Preparations for the Vote

The driving force behind the coming military operations is concern that under the current security conditions, voting will not be possible in much of the so-called Sunni Triangle, the area generally north and west of Baghdad that has generated most of the violence against the American enterprise here.

Still, Iraqi and United Nations officials here say they have begun preparations to hold the elections across the country despite the chaotic security environment.

The Independent Iraqi Electoral Commission, set up here after the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis on June 28, has begun preparing for the mammoth task of registering an estimated 12 million Iraqi voters, beginning Nov. 1 in about 600 offices around the country, officials said.

Iraqi officials say it will be necessary to keep those offices open for at least six weeks while the registrations are gathered, requiring thousands of police officers and possibly troops to protect them. Those plans have not yet been completed, but American and British officials said the primary responsibility for providing ballot security will fall to the Iraqi police, whose record against the insurgents in southern and central Iraq has been spotty at best.

Iraqi and United Nations officials say they are banking that enthusiasm for the elections among ordinary Iraqis will help persuade insurgents and other skeptical Iraqis to allow election workers into most areas of the Sunni Triangle.

But the initial signs have not been encouraging. For example, the Association of Muslim Scholars, the country`s largest group of Sunni clerics, said last week that it had decided against taking part in the elections.

"As long as we are under military occupation, honest elections are impossible," said Sheik Abdul Satar Abdul Jabbar, a member of the association, which represents about 3,000 Sunni mosques in the region.

"People will not come out to vote in this environment," Sheik Jabbar said. "If the election goes forward anyway, the body that will be elected will not represent the country."

Indeed, the violence in Iraq is giving rise to concerns that voting held under the present conditions, with a possible large-scale boycott by the Sunni Arabs, will render the results of such an election suspect in the eyes of many Iraqis. If that happens, some Iraqis say, the stage could be set for even more violence.

"Bad elections will open wounds rather than heal them," said Ghassan al-Atiyyah, the director of the Iraqi Foundation for Development and Democracy, an independent governance group here. "If the Sunnis do not vote, then you could end up with a polarized Parliament that could lead to civil war."

The senior American military official suggested that Falluja, believed to be a haven for insurgents and terrorists, was in a category all its own, and that while securing other cities like Ramadi and Samarra might be achieved with relatively little violence, Falluja could require a major military assault.

The exact timing of an assault on the city would probably depend on whether there were sufficient numbers of Iraqi soldiers who could join in the attack and, more important, take over the city after the Americans fought their way in.

Training for an Assault

Thousands of Iraqi police officers and soldiers are taking part in a huge American-led training effort, supported by an $800 million project to build bases and training camps. At the moment, American officials say there are about 40,000 soldiers in the Iraqi National Guard, the force most likely be deployed for action in Falluja.

But many of those soldiers do not have adequate equipment, and they have little or no combat experience. American commanders are concerned that the experience of April not be repeated, when the Iraqi security forces largely disintegrated in the face of Shiite and Sunni uprisings.

With preparations for the elections under way, American forces have recently been stepping up military operations in areas where they had ceded control to insurgents. American aircraft have repeatedly struck targets in Falluja in recent weeks. Usually, commanders have said the airstrikes were aimed at hide-outs used by the network of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant who has claimed responsibility for several of the deadliest car bombings here.

On Friday, American forces started an operation in Ramadi, another city in insurgent control.

An offensive on Falluja and in other cities in the Sunni Triangle that have slipped out of the grip of American forces would undoubtedly test the political will of the interim government and of its prime minister, Ayad Allawi. An initial assault by American marines on Falluja was halted in April as Iraqi anger grew at the death of as many as 600 Iraqis in the fighting.

At the time, Marine commanders said that they were perhaps two days away from gaining control of the interior of the city, and that they were ordered to halt by the political leadership in Washington.

A second assault on Falluja could be expected to be at least as deadly as the first one. Witnesses from inside the city say the mujahedeen groups are preparing for a big fight, in part by burying large bombs along the main routes into the city.

But the American commander said he felt confident that things would be different this time, largely because now, unlike in April, there was a sovereign Iraqi government, and one that seemed willing to absorb the political storm that such an assault was likely to set off.

"I am rather confident we are not going to take on something as focused and important as Falluja without the endorsement and full understanding of what we are going to get ourselves into and the support of the Iraqi interim government," the American official said.

The American commander said cities like Ramadi and Samarra had been allowed to slip into insurgents` hands largely by default, as the Americans began to concentrate their limited resources on other areas, like protecting the new government and critical pieces of infrastructure.

"Offensive operations based on intelligence were a lower priority," the commander said.

Counting on Elections

For all of their worries, Iraqi and United Nations workers say they are pushing ahead with plans to hold voting across the country in January. To help the Iraqis with the job, the United Nations has dispatched a team led by Carlos Valenzuela, who has overseen 15 elections in places including Liberia, Haiti, Angola and Cambodia.

Mr. Valenzuela said he was worried about the Iraqi elections, especially if the violence prevents candidates from campaigning and voters from registering. But he said in other violence-plagued countries, a wide array of people usually want to vote, largely because almost most everyone is unhappy with the status quo.

"People realize that they are stuck in a situation and that they have to move on to something else," Mr. Valenzuela said. "Elections can help achieve that."

Some Iraqis, too, believe that the prospect of elections could help transform the security environment here, as people begin to realize that the elections are inevitable and that they will be honest and fair.

One of them is Abdul Hussein Hindawi, the chairman of the Iraqi election commission. Mr. Hindawi believes that even the Sunni Arabs, who thrived under Saddam Hussein but who now find themselves a minority in the government, may finally decide that an election is something they do not want to miss.

"They look to their interests, first of all," Mr. Hindawi said.

An Iraqi employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Falluja for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 19, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
No Stars, Just Cuffs
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON — In World Wars I and II, gold star mothers were the queens of their neighborhoods, the stars in their windows ensuring that they would be treated with great respect for their sacrifice in sending sons overseas to fight and die against the Germans and Japanese.

Instead of a gold star, Sue Niederer, 55, of Hopewell, N.J., got handcuffed, arrested and charged with a crime for daring to challenge the Bush policy in Iraq, where her son, Army First Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, died in February while attempting to disarm a bomb.

She came to a Laura Bush rally last week at a firehouse in Hamilton, N.J., wearing a T-shirt that blazed with her agony and anger: "President Bush You Killed My Son."

Mrs. Niederer tried to shout while the first lady was delivering her standard ode to her husband`s efforts to fight terrorism. She wanted to know why the Bush twins weren`t serving in Iraq "if it`s such a justified war," as she put it afterward. The Record of Hackensack, N.J., reported that the mother of the dead soldier was boxed in by Bush supporters yelling "Four more years!" and wielding "Bush/Cheney" signs. Though she eventually left voluntarily, she was charged with trespassing while talking to reporters.

The moment was emblematic of how far the Bushies will go to squelch any voice that presents a view of Iraq that`s different from the sunny party line, which they continue to dish out despite a torrent of alarming evidence to the contrary.

Aside from moms who are handcuffed at Bush events and the Jersey 9/11 moms who are supporting John Kerry after growing disillusioned with White House attempts to suppress the 9/11 investigation, the president is doing very well with women. The so-called security moms, who have replaced soccer moms as a desirable demographic, are now flocking to Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry, believing he can better protect their kids from scary terrorists.

In the new Times poll, 48 percent of women supported the president, compared with Mr. Kerry`s 43 percent - a reversal from July, when Mr. Kerry had the women`s vote 52 to 40 percent. This is an ominous sign for the Democrat, who lost his gender gap advantage after his listless summer and the G.O.P.`s convention swagger.

How did the president who has caused so much insecurity in the world become the hero of security moms? He was, after all, in charge when Al Qaeda struck, and he was the one to send off Mrs. Niederer`s son and other kids to die in a war sold on a false premise. And that conflict has, despite what Mr. Bush claims, spurred more acts of terror and been a recruiting bonanza for Osama bin Laden.

In the Times poll, half of all registered voters said they had a lot of confidence in Mr. Bush`s ability to protect the nation from another terrorist attack, compared with 26 percent who felt that way about Mr. Kerry.

While Mr. Bush managed to duck service in Vietnam and let Osama get away, he has been relentless in John Wayning the election and turning war hero John Kerry into a sniveling wimp.

Last week, Mr. Kerry finally tried to change the subject from Mr. Bush`s mockery of Mr. Kerry`s tortuous stances on Iraq to the awful reality of what`s happening in Iraq.

He got an assist from the president`s own intelligence community, which issued a gloomy report that gave the lie to the administration`s continued insistence that Iraq is a desert flower of democracy.

This was followed by a report by Charles A. Duelfer, the top American weapons inspector in Iraq, that found no evidence that Iraq had begun any large-scale program for weapons production by the time of the American invasion last year. To rationalize its idée fixe on Iraq, the administration squandered 15 months, with 1,200 people - at a time when our scarce supply of Arabic experts should have been focused on the Iraqi insurgency and Al Qaeda - just to figure out that Saddam would have loved to have dangerous weapons if he could have, but he couldn`t, so he didn`t.

Even with the help of his new Clintonistas, Mr. Kerry is nibbling around the edges of the moral case against W(rong) and Dark Cheney. He charged that the president was living in "a fantasy world of spin" on Iraq.

But the Bushies are way beyond spin, which is a staple of politics. These guys are about turning the world upside down, and saying it`s right side up. And that should really give security moms the jitters.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 19, 2004
Ready or Not (and Maybe Not), Electronic Voting Goes National
By TOM ZELLER Jr.

Just over six weeks before the nation holds the first general election in which touch-screen voting will play a major role, specialists agree that whatever the remaining questions about the technology`s readiness, it is now too late to make any significant changes.

Whether or not the machines are ready for the election - or the electorate ready for the machines - there is no turning back. In what may turn out to be one of the most scrutinized general elections in the country`s history, nearly one-third of the more than 150 million registered voters in the United States will be asked to cast their ballots on machines whose accuracy and security against fraud have yet to be tested on such a grand scale.

Because of the uncertainties, experts say there is potential for post-election challenges in any precincts where the machines may malfunction, or where the margin of victory is thin. Sorting out such disputes could prove difficult.

"The possibility for erroneous votes or malicious programming is not as great as critics would have you believe," said Doug Chapin, the director of Electionline.org, a nonpartisan group tracking election reform. "But it`s more than defenders of the technology want to admit. The truth lies somewhere in between."

Since the 2000 presidential election and its contentious aftermath, voting systems that record votes directly on a computer - as opposed to those that use mechanical levers or optically scanned paper ballots - have quickly moved to the center of a rancorous debate. The disagreement pits those who see them as unacceptably vulnerable to vote manipulation and fraud against those who see them as an antidote to the wretched hanging chad.

Even in the final run-up to November`s elections, the issue remains in flux. In California, the machines have been certified, decertified and recertified again. In Ohio, a closely contested state, an electronic upgrade to the state`s predominantly punch-card system was halted in July by the secretary of state there, who cited unresolved security concerns.

All the while, a vocal mixture of computer scientists, local voting-rights groups and freelance civic gadflies have relentlessly cited security flaws in many of the machines, with some going so far as to say that the flaws could be intentional and accusing the major companies of having ties to conservative political causes.

The companies and election officials have fought back bitterly, accusing the activists of being wild-eyed fearmongers. A study released by Electionline.org last month would seem to suggest that partisan politics plays less of a role than critics have claimed.

That report found "no industrywide partisan trend to political contributions among the largest election system companies." The leader in the electronic voting machine market, Diebold, and its executives have given more than $400,000 to Republican interests since 2001, the study found. But other large companies, including Election Systems & Software and Sequoia Voting Systems, "gave a slight edge to Democratic candidates and party organizations."

Concerns over the security and accuracy of the machines have proved harder to dispel, though, and they have not always come from the fringe.

At the end of June, two prestigious groups - the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights - issued a set of recommendations for technical upgrades and procedures that they said could help shore up high-tech voting systems in time for the November elections.

Nancy Zirkin, the deputy director of the Leadership Conference, said she thought that the report had been taken seriously, but conceded that the group did not know how many states or precincts had actually adopted the recommendations.

Other critics say that too little has been done in response to numerous problems - and that it is now too late to do much more before the election, because software and technology have to be tested and "frozen" well ahead of voting to avoid malfunctions and electoral chaos.

"Switching now, approximately 40 days before the election, would probably introduce more security problems than it would avoid," said Aviel D. Rubin, a professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University who brought many of the vulnerabilities in voting systems to light.

Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, is among those who wonder whether the technology is ready for prime time. As she tried out one of Maryland`s new machines at a folk festival last weekend, an apparent slip of her hand generated a "no" vote when she intended to vote "yes," before the error was caught and corrected.

By last Monday, Ms. Mikulski had signed on to Senate legislation that would require all electronic voting terminals around the nation to generate a paper record for each vote. But there are no such capabilities in the AccuVote TS touch-screen systems that will be used throughout Maryland and in many other states that have adopted touch screens or other electronic voting devices. And it is too late to add them.

The Maryland system is far from foolproof, in the view of Michael Wertheimer, a computer security consultant with RABA Technologies, who was hired by the state of Maryland last year to conduct a mock hacking attack against the Diebold machines. A number of security holes were found, including one in the Microsoft operating system that runs the election software, which did not have up-to-date security patches. The flaws, Mr. Wertheimer said, could allow tampering and skewed election results.

He also noted that in the presidential primary election last March, Maryland used software on its machines that had not been certified by independent testing authorities, and thus violated state law.

But Linda Lamone, the administrator of the state`s election laws, has repeatedly stated that her office has taken the necessary steps to improve the Diebold machines. She says that issues of uncertified software have been corrected and that Maryland`s election system is secure.

The Maryland Court of Appeals appears to agree. On Tuesday, the court rejected a suit brought by a Maryland voter group, TrueVoteMD, which sought to force the state to further improve security on its machines and offer voters a paper-ballot alternative.

Still, as the days dwindle, paper remains at the heart of the debate.

Nevada, another state that will make near-universal use of touch-screen voting in November, purchased machines manufactured by Sequoia that produce a paper record - a move that received high marks earlier this month from the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative group in Washington. "Without an actual paper ballot, we are then left with only the computer`s word for the election results," the group said in a news release accompanying its informal "Election Preparedness Scorecard" three weeks ago.

The group gave grades of F to several states - including Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Tennessee - based on their degree of reliance on paperless electronic voting. Florida, whose results will almost certainly receive intense scrutiny, received an F-plus, while Georgia was given an F-minus. New Mexico, a swing state that will rely heavily on touch-screen voting on Nov. 2, received a D-minus.

Harris N. Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America, a trade group that represents many of the voting machine makers, concedes that the industry has probably not been sensitive enough to the political nuances surrounding voting technology - particularly in the aftermath of the 2000 election. But he argued that the fears expressed by many of those opposed to electronic voting are driven as much by ignorance as by passion.

"What we`re replacing is a system that was broken - so broken that Congress passed a special law," he said, referring to the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which was designed to help overhaul the nation`s election system in the aftermath of the 2000 debacle. "It was so broken that Congress appropriated over a billion dollars to fix it," he said.

The law, which established the Election Assistance Commission, generally encourages the movement away from punch cards and the exploration of other voting technologies. The law also calls for the federal standards agency, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, to develop universal standards for voting systems. But the agency says the $500,000 Congress appropriated last year for such efforts has been exhausted, and Congress did not provide additional funds for the effort in 2004.

As for security concerns, Mr. Miller said that vendors submit their source code - the underlying instructions for the machines` software - for independent inspection, to uncover any hidden programming and to ensure that the machines calculate properly.

Critics, however, point out that the labs inspecting the software are typically paid by the vendors themselves, and that they somehow failed to uncover the flaws discovered by Mr. Wertheimer, Professor Rubin, and election officials in Ohio, Maryland and elsewhere.

While it is too late in the game to make it possible to produce a paper record for each vote on every machine already deployed, Mr. Miller said that vendors would be willing to include that feature in the future if the market demanded it. Most of the major vendors have models that can supply a printed record, but in most cases, Mr. Miller said, election officials have not required it.

Paper receipts are not automatically required because no such universal guideline has ever existed. Mechanical lever machines, for instance, which have been in widespread use since the 1930`s - and will still be used by millions of voters this year - have never produced a paper record of each vote. And states have traditionally established their own definitions of what constitutes a ballot.

Still, the scrutiny and criticism that have dogged electronic voting machines over the last year all but guarantee that a pall of suspicion and distrust will hang over a technology that awaits approximately 45 million registered voters if they go to the polls. Whether the concerns are justified or overblown, experts say, in the wake of the 2000 election controversy, the mere hint of unreliability this time could turn the electronic vote, should the margin of victory be narrow, into one more tinderbox.

"The woods aren`t any drier than they were in 2000," Mr. Chapin of Electionline.org is fond of saying, "but there are a lot more people with matches."

That is a point that Edward S. Morillo, a representative of the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters in California, would probably concede. Mr. Morillo travels the county acquainting voters with the Sequoia AVC Edge, the voting machine that will be used there on Nov. 2.

On Wednesday afternoon, he stopped by the Indian Health Center in San Jose.

As patients and employees took turns poking at the screen, an occasional "What is it?" or "Oops!" seemed to foretell what ballot workers might expect on Election Day.

Mr. Morillo said that reactions to the touch screens have generally been mixed, and that Santa Clara County - like every California county where similar electronic voting is in place - would offer a paper ballot alternative for those who, for whatever reason, are not comfortable with the machines.

"The thing about the touch screen,`` he said, "is that you either love it or hate it."

John Schwartz and Carolyn Marshall contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

Eine Bananenrepublik bereitete sich auf ein Wahldesaster vor? Die Wahlbeobachter aus allen Länden sind auch schon vor Ort.
Die USA braucht dringend eine Überarbeitung ihrer Wahlverfahren. Versuche in den Parlamenten sind auch gestartet worden. Ein Wahlsystem aus der Zeit der Postkutschen ist heute überholt.
Das hat sehr wenig mit Touch Screen Wahlmaschinen oder Hanging Chats zu tun.

September 19, 2004
The Hand-Marked Ballot Wins for Accuracy
By TOM ZELLER Jr.

After the pandemonium over dimpled and pregnant chads in the 2000 election, nearly everyone agreed it was time to rethink old vote-counting ways. But the stampede to touch-screen voting was not inevitable.

Another, demonstrably more reliable technology was already on the rise: optical scan voting, introduced in some parts of the country in the late 1970`s. By the 2000 election, optical scanning - which involves marking a paper ballot that is ultimately read and counted by a computer - had overtaken all other voting methods as the most common way to vote in the United States. This year, optical scan systems will be used in more than 45 percent of all counties, according to Election Data Services, a political consulting firm in Washington.

After the 2000 election, a study by the Voting Technology Project, a joint effort by the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, took a hard look at the nation`s voting systems. Using a measure of what they called "residual votes" - overcounting, undercounting or not counting votes for any reason - researchers found that two existing voting methods had produced relatively low error rates in the last four presidential elections: old-fashioned hand-counted paper ballots and optical scan systems.

The study found that the mechanical lever system, which dominated the market in 1980 and has been in decline ever since, performed considerably worse. In overall performance, electronic voting - both the older push-button variety and the newer touch-screen units - performed scarcely better than punch cards.

"The immediate implication of our analysis is that the U.S. can lower the number of lost votes in 2004 by replacing punch cards and lever machines with optical scanning," the report said. "Touch screens are, in our opinion, still unproven."

But election officials who decided to change systems overwhelmingly went for the touch screens. Compared with about 13 percent of registered voters in 2000, this year roughly 30 percent of those registered will be asked to vote on electronic systems. Optical scan systems grew as well, although at a much slower pace: from about 30 percent of registered voters in 2000 to just under 35 percent this year, according to Election Data Services.

The Caltech/M.I.T. study said that the newest electronic systems had great potential, but were plagued by a variety of problems, like loose cables and confusing interfaces.

Change is natural, said Stephen Ansolabehere, a political science professor at M.I.T. and a member of the study team. But "optical scanning is a pretty good interim solution for the next five or 10 years,`` he said.

And then what? Litigators, start your engines: the Internet.

Professor Ansolabehere is among those who predict that myriad security obstacles will one day be overcome and votes will be cast from the nation`s living rooms.

"I think it`s inevitable," he said.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
September 19, 2004

Missing Voting Machines Snarl Election
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 18 (AP) - Many New Orleans residents were unable to vote for hours on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on Saturday because voting machines were not delivered to some polling places, a state official said.

At least 59 precincts did not have the machines when the polls opened at 6 a.m., apparently because drivers hired to deliver them did not show up, said Scott Madere, a spokesman for the secretary of state, Fox McKeithen.

Workers in the secretary of state`s office, including Mr. McKeithen, delivered the machines by noon, Mr. Madere said.

The attorney general, Charles C. Foti Jr., planned to investigate.

"We will review what happened," Mr. Foti said, "and take whatever steps are necessary to make sure it doesn`t happen again."

Voters throughout Louisiana were voting on an amendment to the state Constitution that would ban gay marriage. There were also local races in New Orleans.

Mr. Madere said voters affected by the missing machines would be allowed to vote after polling places closed at 8 p.m. if they were in line then.

September 19, 2004
Electronic Votes Briefly Lost in Florida
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Votes Briefly Lost in Florida

TAMPA, Fla., Sept. 18 (AP) - A mistake by an election worker lost 245 electronic ballots cast in the Florida primary last month, but the mix-up did not affect the outcome of any race, election officials said Friday.

Hillsborough County residents cast the ballots before the Aug. 31 election on an A.T.M.-type machine set up at a library, according to Buddy Johnson, the elections supervisor. He said that a member of his staff left the machine in test mode. The votes were recorded and stored but not counted until the mistake was discovered on Friday. Mr. Johnson said the votes were discovered missing when his staff compared the number of people who signed in to vote at the precinct and the number of ballots counted there. In all, the county had 118,699 votes cast.

Mr. Johnson assured voters that the error would not be repeated in the presidential election on Nov. 2.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Der Irak ist wieder ein Thema in den USA!

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE][Table align=center]
A roadside bomb in Baghdad on Saturday hit a car carrying three Iraqi security guards working for a hotel that is often used by Western contractors.
[/TABLE]



September 19, 2004
Bombs Kill 19 in Kirkuk and Wound 3 in Baghdad
By EDWARD WONG

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 18 - A suicide car bomb exploded Saturday in the northern oil city of Kirkuk after the car plowed into a crowd of men seeking jobs with the Iraqi National Guard, killing 19 people and wounding 67 others, the Health Ministry said.

The bomb was the third this week aimed at Iraqi security forces, and it continued a violent campaign by insurgents to cripple the institutions of the interim government.

Television images showed the charred and smoking hulk of a car sitting near a concrete wall surrounding the National Guard headquarters.

Two car bombs exploded in Baghdad on Saturday. The American military said two soldiers were killed in the afternoon and eight wounded by a suicide car bomb in Baghdad. Earlier, in central Baghdad, a roadside bomb exploded on a side street, hitting a car carrying three Iraqi security guards working for the Sadir Hotel, often used by Western contractors. Police officers on the scene said one man had been killed and two wounded, though a statement put out later by the American military said initial reports showed there were three injuries and no deaths.

In Mosul, insurgents armed with assault rifles and hand grenades ambushed a civilian convoy carrying Muhammad Zibari, the head of oil products for the state-run North Oil Company. Mr. Zibari escaped, but eight people were killed and four injured in the fighting, hospital officials said.

Attacks on state officials have become common, and insurgents have been particularly keen to attack the country`s oil infrastructure, sabotaging a pipeline in the north last Tuesday.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Residents of Falluja, Iraq, early Saturday in a house bombed by American planes after reports said about 10 insurgents were gathered there. At least three people were killed in the attack.
[/TABLE]
Foreign civilians have also found themselves embroiled in the hostilities, as kidnappings, often for profit, have increased in recent weeks. On Saturday, Al Jazeera, the Arab news network, broadcast clips from a tape showing two American engineers and a Briton who were kidnapped Thursday from their home in Baghdad. The tape was made by One God and Jihad, the group led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Jazeera reported. In the video, the three men - the Americans, Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong, and the Briton, Kenneth John Bigley - have white blindfolds on. The camera pans across their faces as they say their names and state that they were working on construction projects at an American military base.

Al Jazeera quoted the insurgents as saying the men would be killed within 48 hours if all female Iraqis held in prisons in Abu Ghraib and the southern port city of Um Qasr were not freed.

Al Jazeera also reported that a militant group had kidnapped 10 employees of an American-Turkish company and threatened to kill them if the company does not withdraw from Iraq within three days, Reuters reported. More than 120 foreigners have been seized since April, when a mass uprising flared across the country. While Shiite militants in the south have generally been more lenient toward their hostages, Sunni jihadists have shown less mercy. Mr. Zarqawi`s group is suspected of beheading at least five hostages.

At least five other foreigners are still being held by various groups - Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, two Italian aid workers; George Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot, two French journalists; and an Iraqi-American named Aban Elias.

Police officials in Falluja said Saturday that they had received a message from the Islamic Army of Iraq, which claims to be holding the Frenchmen, saying that the captors had agreed to free the two journalists to allow them to write about the resistance. Reuters reported that an Islamist Web site had posted a similar message. The messages could not be independently verified.

The American military said it conducted airstrikes late on Saturday against a checkpoint in Falluja run by militants suspected of having ties to the network of Mr. Zarqawi. The military did not give a casualty count. In Kirkuk, the deputy governor, Ismail Hadidi, told Al Jazeera that the local government had received information that insurgents were planning to "escalate the situation in the city." The police were told to strengthen their defenses, he said, but the insurgents located a "soft spot" and drove the explosive-laden car into an open area where national guard recruits were gathered.

In the southern city of Basra, where fighting broke out between British troops and a Shiite militia on Friday night, British forces agreed to withdraw from the area of combat after hours of negotiations. Armored vehicles that had overnight surrounded an office of Moktada al-Sadr, the cleric behind the recent Shiite uprising, had withdrawn by 2 p.m. The British agreed to compensate Mr. Sadr`s organization for all damages, said Dhiya al-Kadhimi, commander of the city`s Iraqi National Guard units.

2 Soldiers Face Trial in Iraqi`s Death

FORT CARSON, Colo., Sept. 18 (AP) - Two soldiers face courts-martial in the drowning of an Iraqi civilian who was reported to have been forced to jump off a bridge near Samarra in January. The soldiers, First Lt. Jack Saville and Sgt. First Class Tracy Perkins, based at Fort Carson, will be tried on charges including manslaughter, assault, making false statements, and obstruction of justice.

Fakr Haider contributed reporting from Basra for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

Die Ausrede der Woche.

September 19, 2004
CULTURE OR CHROMOSOMES?
Real Men Don`t Clean Bathrooms
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

AN hunt mastodon. Woman sweep cave, suckle young.

Fast forward to 1950. Man hunt paycheck. Woman vacuum cave, suckle young and drive to Little League.

Progress painfully to 2004. Man and woman both hunt paycheck. Woman still suckle young, vacuum cave, etc. Man hunt remote control.

O.K., this is a cartoon. But a report issued last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggests that, much as things have changed since the Stone Age and the Stepford Age, some things remain the same.

The bureau interviewed 21,000 people about how they had spent the previous day, minute by minute. Employed men worked an hour longer a day than employed women. But in two-job households, women spent about an hour a day more caring for young children. With older children, these women spent six hours a day in "secondary care," like shopping with children in tow, while men spent four hours.

About 20 percent of men reported doing some sort of housework, like cleaning or laundry, versus 55 percent of women. About 35 percent of men cooked or washed dishes, versus 66 percent of women.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
This is not to say there has been no progress toward parity. Surveys from the 1980`s, at the dawn of the Two-Paycheck Age, found that men then did only 10 percent to 15 percent of household chores. But, compared with the way women have poured into the work force, that still seems fairly pathetic.

So, Wilma and Betty, what do you think? Are men just lazy slobs? Or do they have a excuse? Are they somehow biologically incapable of sharing the burden?

The animal kingdom is too full of bizarre exceptions to suggest that the roots are chromosomal. Lionesses bring home the bacon, seahorse dads tote their young in pouches.

Julie E. Brines, a University of Washington sociologist who has studied labor division in marriage, said she was "not a big fan of a biological or genetic explanation," especially because men have proved they can do more.

Anne Fausto-Sterling, a Brown University biologist who studies hormonal sex differences, agreed that there was "no scientific basis" for a genetic explanation, and that the behavior was presumably learned in childhood.

Men may learn to do more than their fathers, but they are still choosy. Most are much more willing to change a diaper than scrub a bathroom, which Dr. Brines called "the bottom of the task hierarchy."

Couples may be angrily thrusting the toilet brush at each other because there is no ancestral guidance. Plumbing arrived well after the division of labor, and moved indoors only in the Victorian era.

In 1935, the anthropologist George Peter Murdock indexed dozens of tribal societies according to which sex did what. Hunting, fishing and land-clearing were overwhelmingly male. Cooking, grinding and water carrying were overwhelmingly female. Men worked metal, wood and stone, built weapons, boats and musical instruments. Women wove cloth and made pots.

Some tasks were more evenly divided: tending birds and cows, gathering shellfish, working leather, raising shelters, preparing alcohol or narcotics.

Many tasks, suggested Roy G. D`Andrade, an anthropologist at the University of Connecticut, are determined by whether children can safely join. If you`re hunting Arctic seals by kayak, "you can`t have a bunch of kids hanging off you," he said.

Once nomads settled down to farm, the division became indoor work versus outdoor work, argued Richard A. Shweder, a University of Chicago anthropologist and the author of "Why Do Men Barbecue?" Women are vulnerable while pregnant and breast-feeding, so they stay inside as mistresses of the house.

Even fire yields to the division: women cook on the hearth, men barbecue. One job in the house of Sam Martin, the author of "How to Mow the Lawn: The Lost Art of Being a Man," follows that rule precisely. The kitchen garbage is in his wife`s province, he said, until its time for it to go outside, "where it`s dark, and there might be bugs."

The heft of the tools also divides the sexes, Dr. Shweder said. Women tend to do the planting in societies that use hoes, but men plow. Guys, Mr. Martin agreed, like working with noisy power tools, but vacuum cleaners don`t count, unless it comes to fixing it with a screwdriver.

Marriage therapists - and not always of the Surrendered Wife school - argue that men often fail not because of prehistoric predilections but because of perfectionist modern spouses. The "maternal gatekeeper" theory of family psychology holds that women ask men to share their work, but then insist on approving the result. When they criticize or even redo it, their husbands storm off the job, or slyly mess it up so they aren`t asked to do it again.

Dr. Brines said she found an unexpected anomaly in her research: men tend to share more housework as their wives` incomes approach theirs. But when wives make much more, the wives also tend to do much more housework. That was particularly common for black working women, she said, and she suspected they were compensating for earning more by being more traditional at home. Their husbands, she said, often stuck to stereotypically masculine work like mowing lawns and washing the car.

Interestingly, Mr. Martin, lawn-mowing mentor, has not been able to find an American publisher for his sequel in the lost arts of manhood, "How to Keep House," which is too bad for men. John M. Gottman, the psychologist who founded the University of Washington`s "Love Lab" - an apartment where couples interact under the eyes of researchers - did a study of newlyweds in 1998.

The more men participated in the care of children, housework and daily conversation, he found, the more the wife increased her level of satisfaction and sexual intimacy.

Man hunt intimacy. Man clean bathroom.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Eins müßen wir wissen, eine Wahl von Kerry wird teuer für die alten Europäer. Dann könnten sie die Hilfe für den Irak nicht mehr verweigern. Wenn Bush wiedergewählt wird, kann man weiter die Unterstützung versagen mit dem Hinweis, er soll die Suppe, die er sich mit seinen NeoCon-Hilfstruppen eingeschenkt hat, auch selbst auslöffeln. Die Gefahr bei Bush ist seine Unterstützung der Aussenpolitik der Neocons um Wolfowitz u.a. im Pentagon und deren Nähe zum Likud und Sharon und dadurch die Gefahr weitere Abenteuer im Nahen Osten. Diese scheinen zwar zur Absicherung Israels nötig zu sein, aber für die USA und die Entwicklung ihrer Beziehungen zu den Staaten des vorderen und mittleren Asien langfristig eher schädlich zu sein. Eine konkrete Aussage von Kerry zu diesem Thema ist mir nicht bekannt, außer dass er Israel weiterhin unterstützen will. Der folgende Artikel beschäftigt sich mit Kerrys Problemen eine Gegenposition, wenn überhaupt möglich, zu der augenblicklichen Bush-Irakpolitik aufzubauen. Für Kerry beginnt schon die Schwierigkeit damit, dass er Bush`s Ermächtigungsgesetz für dessen geplanten Irak-Krieg zugestimmt hat.

September 19, 2004
How Would They End the War? Go Figure.
By JAMES BENNET

WASHINGTON — President Bush told voters in Minnesota on Thursday that "there`s ongoing acts of violence" in Iraq but "this country`s headed toward democracy."

Senator John Kerry told the National Guard Association, meeting in Las Vegas, that Mr. Bush lived in "a fantasy world of spin," and that "with each passing day, we`re seeing more chaos, more violence, more indiscriminate killings" in Iraq.

As usual, neither man had much to say about what might seem a weighty, connected challenge: How to bring the conflict in Iraq to a close.

This presidential campaign has a passion for the fine print, from the precise service records of the candidates to the exact positions they have taken, and adjusted, over the years.

But when it comes to a paramount foreign policy test the next president will face, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry have said little more than that each will end the war the right way and his opponent will not.

In terms of presidential politics, the blurriness of the debate has so far worked to Mr. Bush`s advantage, political strategists say. He has succeeded in framing the Iraq war as part of a larger war on terror, while Mr. Kerry faces limits imposed by his own past decisions, including his vote to give the president authority to use force in Iraq at the outset.

But in terms of public debate, a chance to clarify the means and aims of an American war may be going by the wayside.

The vagueness stems partly from the military and diplomatic realities, the elusiveness of any quick fix. And it stems partly from the obstacles that would face any challenger trying to find a campaign issue in a foreign crisis.

"It`s a very tough thing to talk about for both, for different reasons," said Matt Bennett, a Democratic consultant. "For Bush, because it`s a liability, and for Kerry, because it`s hard to figure out what to say."

He said that Mr. Kerry was "boxed in by the reality that you don`t want to prejudge a situation for which you don`t have the intelligence, or you could get beaten up" by the press.

Scott Reed, a Republican strategist, said that by transferring sovereignty to the Iraqis in June and by looking ahead now to some form of elections in January, Mr. Bush distanced himself from the conflict. "I think that`s been a clever strategy to keep them once removed," he said. "While the steady stream of bad news from Iraq is wearing people down, it seems like Iraqi problems."

In envisioning a way out of Iraq, each candidate offers less a detailed road map than an arrow in the sand. As he often does, Mr. Bush fused the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan on Thursday, telling his audience in St. Cloud, Minn., "We`ll help them get their elections, we`ll get them on the path to stability and democracy as quickly as possible, and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned."

On Wednesday, in a rare development, one candidate was pressed for specifics. The radio host Don Imus asked Mr. Kerry how he would meet his stated goal of leaving Iraq in a first term. Mr. Kerry said, "The plan gets more complicated every single day" because of the mayhem there.

He said he would "immediately call a summit meeting of the European community," seek more help from allies and speed training of Iraqi troops. Questioned further, Mr. Kerry said: "What everybody in America ought to be doing today is not asking me. They ought to be asking the president, `What is your plan?` "

Mr. Imus said, "We`re asking you because you want to be president."

Mr. Kerry replied, "I can`t tell you what I`m going to find on the ground on Jan. 20."

During presidential races in two previous wars in 1952, during the Korean war, and in 1968, during the Vietnam War the debate also stayed blurry. "That`s a straight line from `52 through `68 to today," said Douglas. C. Foyle, a political scientist at Wesleyan University who is writing a book about the effect of campaigns on foreign policy. "Nobody has an answer and nobody`s being very specific."

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower won in 1952 after offering only the fuzziest of alternatives. Just before the election, he promised that, if elected, he would "concentrate on the job of ending the Korean war" and added, "I shall go to Korea." He left wide open the question of what he might do there.

In 1968, Richard Nixon promised "to end the war and win the peace." He offered few specifics beyond one that has an echo in Mr. Kerry`s campaign today - a pledge to speed the training of the local American allies, South Vietnamese troops.

"He was very cagey about it," said Kenneth L. Khachigian, a longtime Republican strategist who, at 23, was a researcher for Nixon in 1968. "He didn`t want to restrict his options." Mr. Khachigian noted that Nixon had a significant advantage over Mr. Kerry - he could sit back and let Democratic opponents of the war attack it and his rival, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey.

Mr. Kerry`s advisers say that he plans to present soon a more detailed proposal for ending the conflict. To be credible, he must address voters` worries about the war, they say, though they believe domestic issues like health care are more politically effective for him.

Mr. Kerry`s critics say his caution fuels a perception that he is being evasive. But he has real "incentives to obfuscate," said Peter Feaver, a political scientist at Duke University, including concerns that a new attack in the United States or a sudden change in Iraq could make committing to a specific proposal now seem misguided later.

The bulk of Mr. Bush`s supporters on the Iraq conflict have similar reasons for backing it, while his critics differ on fundamental questions like whether it is a good war fought poorly or a mistaken venture from the start. "His statements on Iraq, if he`s precise, end up offending one or the other wing," Professor Feaver said of Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Kerry is also hobbled by his vote authorizing the president to go to war and his agreement with Mr. Bush that walking away now would embolden enemies of the United States. So he is trying to challenge Mr. Bush on his management of the war and his honesty in talking about it.

Mr. Kerry presents himself as better able to extricate the United States. He is pressing distinctions not of broad strategy but of tactics, which might not provide the sharp contrast he wants.

Even Mr. Kerry`s talk of recruiting more allies has exposed him to an implicit attack from Mr. Bush, who routinely says, as he did in St. Cloud, "I will never turn over America`s national security decisions to leaders of other countries."

Mr. Kerry is also caught in a larger box - his essential agreement with Mr. Bush`s vision of the worldwide terrorist threat.

Now, Mr. Kerry would like to isolate Iraq from Afghanistan and the larger struggle against terrorism, while Mr. Bush wants to connect them. Mr. Kerry would like to connect the war in Iraq to problems within the United States -"It`s wrong to be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America,`` he says - while Mr. Bush wants to keep them apart.

Mr. Bush`s campaign task has been easier because of the politics that accompany a struggle against terrorism, in which the threat seems as real and close as the next trip downtown but the enemy is spectral.

Mr. Bush consistently merges the Iraq war with the wider struggle. "You`re fighting terrorist enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the globe so we do not have to face them here at home," he told the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

David Axelrod, a Democratic strategist based in Chicago, said that by morphing the conflicts in Iraq and against terror, the Republicans were making attacks on the Iraq policy "a sign of weakness in the war on terrorism."

"By putting it in that context they try to put the protective shield around themselves and use the negative energy against you," he said, adding that the Iraq war may actually have emboldened terrorists. He said that the Republican strategy may yet be "sorely tested" because "the situation in Iraq seems to be worsening."

Mr. Kerry is trying to convince voters that, because of the costs of the Iraq war, Mr. Bush has forced them to sacrifice without explicitly asking them to, spending an estimated $200 billion on a foreign adventure rather than on needs at home.

For that message to stick, voters must first accept his premise that, his own vote notwithstanding, the war in Iraq was a mistake.

That explains why Mr. Bush and his surrogates spend far more time justifying the entrance to the war than pointing to an exit.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[Joerver]

Eine Story, die ich nicht zum ersten Mal gelesen habe. Ein Zeugnis über den Zustand des Iraks und wie weit demokratisches Gedankengut dort schon verbreitete ist.
Shortly after he took office in June, stories circulated of Dr. Allawi visiting a detention center in the Baghdad suburb and shooting several detained insurgents dead....
But a curious thing happened: many Iraqis who heard the story told friends they would not be unhappy if it were true, because it would show that Iraq finally had a strongman at its helm again, one who might restore order.

September 19, 2004
LIFE IN THE BULL`S EYE
Baghdad`s Strong Man Struggles to Keep His Grip
By JOHN F. BURNS

bAGHDAD, Iraq — Ayad Allawi will have his right wrist in a cast when he arrives in the United States this week for his first visit as Iraq`s interim prime minister, and it will provide the 59-year-old neurosurgeon with a powerful talking point. Asked about the wrist in an interview here as he prepared to leave for London, New York and Washington, Dr. Allawi joshed: "I`ve been shooting people, didn`t you know?"

Shortly after he took office in June, stories circulated of Dr. Allawi visiting a detention center in the Baghdad suburb and shooting several detained insurgents dead. The story quickly faded, with American officials saying they had no information to confirm it, and Dr. Allawi dismissing it as a "ridiculous" fiction. But a curious thing happened: many Iraqis who heard the story told friends they would not be unhappy if it were true, because it would show that Iraq finally had a strongman at its helm again, one who might restore order.

In the interview on Thursday at his heavily guarded residence in the Green Zone compound in Baghdad, Dr. Allawi went on to give another explanation. What really happened, he said, was that he lost his temper at his Iraqi aides and pounded the table so hard that a bone snapped. "I was angry," he said.

The issue, aides said later, was that Iraqi government spokesmen had reported that a man arrested by American and Iraqi troops in Tikrit was Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam Hussein`s second-in-command, but a DNA test proved them wrong. An embarrassed Dr. Allawi seems to have concluded that, for that moment, he had been made to look less like a square-jawed sheriff than a bungler.

Now, as he makes his first trip to the United States as America`s chief partner in Iraq, Dr. Allawi finds himself at a tipping point.

Twelve weeks after Americans transferred sovereignty to Iraqis, he is more endangered than ever. If Dr. Allawi was popular among moderate Iraqis in the first weeks after his interim government took over in June, it is plain now that his grace period has expired.

In the suicide bombings and attacks on American military vehicles in the last week in Baghdad, at least 75 Iraqi civilians, policemen and police recruits were killed. One constant was the fury that survivors turned on the Allawi government, accused of being the creation of the American troops who brought miseries to Iraq, and of failing so far to stem the growing violence.

Visiting Dr. Allawi at his sprawling residence is a short course in just how bad the situation has become for anybody associated with the American purpose in Iraq. To reach the house is to navigate a fantastical obstacle course of checkpoints, with Iraqi police cars and Humvees parked athwart a zigzag course through relays of concrete barriers. An hour or more is taken up with body searches and sniffing by dogs, while American soldiers man turreted machine guns. A boxlike infrared imaging device can detect the body heat of anybody approaching through a neighboring playground. The final security ring is manned by C.I.A.-trained guards from Iraqi Kurdistan. If Dr. Allawi were Ian Fleming`s Dr. No, no more elaborate defenses could be conceived.

This is the man who has been chosen to lead Iraq to the haven of a democratic future, but he is sealed off about as completely as he could be from ordinary Iraqis, in the virtual certainty that insurgents will kill him if they ever get a clear shot.

Even his opponents would not contest that Dr. Allawi is brave. He flies aboard American helicopters to the most dangerous cities in Iraq: Najaf, last month, at the height of the insurrection there; Samarra, more recently, to negotiate with tribal chiefs.

Yet it is increasingly hard to see how he can avoid becoming an Iraqi Kerensky, an interim figure fated to be overwhelmed by forces that seem, increasingly, to be beyond the power of any reasoned effort to contain them. Much of his effort is now dedicated to creating the conditions for elections in January to choose an assembly that will frame a permanent constitution.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, has said he finds it hard to see how an election could be held under current conditions, but Dr. Allawi, in the interview, said he remains unwaveringly committed to the January vote. So are American officials.

The immutable fact, acknowledged by all, is that much blood will have to be spilled in American-led offensives if any election is to be possible. The plan that American commanders and Dr. Allawi have laid out is to regain control of predominantly Sunni Muslim cities - Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, Baquba, among others - and to do so with Iraq`s newly retrained security forces acting as the point of the spear. Simultaneously, they aim to root out the potential for recurrent uprisings in the Shiite population centers that lurks in the shape of the Mahdi Army of the rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

In post-occupation Iraq, the Americans now advising Dr. Allawi have begun speaking not of insisting on a Jeffersonian democracy but of creating a "working democracy" that excludes rabble-rousers like Mr. Sadr, of building Iraqi forces who can help crush the cleric and other enemies, and of getting out.

For these purposes, Dr. Allawi - the man who waved that gun about the Baghdad campus 35 years ago, the man who pounds his desk when aides embarrass him - is considered a safe pair of hands. His favorite undertaking is to travel with American commanders to review the new Iraqi battalions that will soon be asked to march into the rebels` guns and to exult in what they, together with American soldiers, may accomplish.

In recent days, Dr. Allawi toured a base near the Baghdad airport with Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American officer now charged with righting the mess that had been made of training Iraq`s new fighting units, many of which mutinied or disintegrated the moment they were asked to go up against rebels in the spring battles at Falluja and Najaf.

American officers concede that the true mettle of the thousands of Iraqis now pouring out of the training camps will not be known until they are asked to fight for real, but Dr. Allawi, watching recruits attacking mock terrorist safe houses and staging helicopter-borne assaults, could hardly contain his enthusiasm. As smoke cleared from a mock attack, he turned to his new security adviser, Qassim Daoud, and asked, "Qassim, Why do you keep telling me we don`t have anything?"

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Berichtigung!
[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]


Der Artikel zu dem Thema als Link:
Putin Gambles on Raw Power
By STEVEN LEE MYERS

Published: September 19, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/weekinreview/19myer.html

[Joerver]

WHAT SHOULD KERRY DO?
4 Artikel heute in der Times.
2 in voller Länge, 2 als Links.


September 19, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

1.Trading Up
By BOB KERREY
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/opinion/19kerrey.html


2.Trust Your Gut
By DONNA BRAZILE

Washington — As a seasoned and experienced public servant, Senator John Kerry has known perilous times when his political future looked bleak. For some mystical reasons that can be explained only by dissecting his political DNA, Mr. Kerry is like the prize-winning horse Seabiscuit - he runs best from behind.

Now that he is behind - by as much as 13 points in one poll - he appears to be running harder, faster, bolder and stronger. After weeks of being on the receiving end of a mountain of unsolicited advice from Senate colleagues, party insiders and activists on the street, Mr. Kerry now appears to be listening to his most trusted and reliable adviser: his gut.

This is welcome news not only for Democrats and those who support Mr. Kerry, but also for anyone who is interested in an honest debate about the failures of the Bush administration. And while Mr. Kerry is campaigning with a renewed passion and delivering his speeches with greater urgency, he may still be able to benefit from a pointer or two.

Many party activists who send me e-mail messages would like to see Mr. Kerry paint a better picture of Mr. Bush as a stubborn man wedded to ideology, oblivious to any facts that contradict his worldview. He places personal loyalty above performance. No faithful aide, Cabinet member or government employee is ever held accountable for any mistakes, no matter how grave. Time and again, for example, before and after the invasion of Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld overrode objections of military leaders so he could follow his own minimalist blueprint for victory.

But victory remains elusive. In the final weeks of this campaign, Mr. Kerry should take a page from the playbook of Karl Rove, President Bush`s chief political strategist. Mr. Rove often advises his clients to attack their opponents on the very issue they perceive as their own greatest strength.

In President Bush`s case, that issue is his prosecution of the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq. Every day until Election Day, Mr. Kerry should remind voters that the Bush administration is making America less secure. As Mr. Kerry began pointing out last week, the president`s handling of the two wars - and they are distinct - has been an unmitigated disaster.

Both Mr. Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, need to reiterate this message to regain the momentum they had at the end of the Democratic convention. Mr. Kerry should also outline what changes he is prepared to make in the future.

This race is still winnable for John Kerry. Now that the dust has settled from the Republicans` rambunctious convention and the president is in his sights, Mr. Kerry must keep running - fast and with passion.

Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000 and the author of "Cooking with Grease: Stirring the Pots in American Politics," is chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee`s Voting Rights Institute.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company


3.Pick a Message, Any Message
By LEON E. PANETTA

Monterey, Calif. — If John Kerry is to win this election, he will have to be much bolder about telling the American people exactly what he will do to make the country better. As a wise colleague in the House of Representatives once told me: voters don`t care so much about what you believe so long as you believe in something.

President Bush has convinced voters that he believes in something even though polls continue to show that a majority believe that he is taking the country in the wrong direction. Mr. Kerry cannot win simply by complaining about where the country is going. He must show that he has a clear sense of what must be done to change course and to make the lives of Americans better in the future.

There is not much time left in this election to make that case. But it is exactly because the American people do not feel good about what is happening in Iraq and in our economy that Mr. Kerry can win if he is willing to take some risks. Presidential campaigns are by their very nature averse to risk-taking. In the 44 days that remain, Mr. Kerry will have to break that pattern to win.

Above all, he needs to be simple and direct with voters. For too long, the campaign has played with too many messages. Mr. Kerry must develop a single, simple, succinct message: "We need a safer and stronger America" might work. Then he needs to stick to it every day.

Mr. Kerry must also forget the past. Too much of this campaign has been consumed by the debate about service in Vietnam and how we got into the war in Iraq. The public has moved beyond these debates. People want to know what the president will do in the future so as not to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq.

In making that argument, Mr. Kerry should point out that being stubborn is not the same as being decisive or wise. Sticking to the same policy in Iraq regardless of worsening conditions is wrong. Pushing even larger tax cuts in the face of a weak economy and a huge deficit is wrong.

President Bush says he`s decisive, but refusing to change policies in the face of facts is irresponsible. This election cannot be about who is tougher. It must focus on who is wiser.

Mr. Bush is most vulnerable on two issues - Iraq and the economy. Mr. Kerry needs to confront the president on both, with specific proposals that make clear the stark choices facing voters.

There are no guarantees as to who will win this election and, in the end, national and international events may determine the outcome more than anything Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush do. And yet, if John Kerry can bring some clear, straight talk to his campaign, not only will he have a better chance to win, but the nation will be the better for it.

Leon E. Panetta, a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993 and chief of staff to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997, is director of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University at Monterey Bay.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company


4.Bringing the Battle to the President
By PAUL GLASTRIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/opinion/19glastris.html

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Es gibt in den letzten Wochen zunehmend Ärger mit Angehörigen der National Garde. In früheren Zeiten als Bush noch bei der Garde diente oder besser gesagt, die Zeit dort totsoff, mußten die Gardisten nicht an die Front. Heute ist es ein absolut freiwilliger Dienst, da es auch keine Wehrpflicht mehr gibt, anders als während des Vietnam-Krieges. Der Dienst bei der Garde erschöpft sich normalerweise darin ab und zu ein Wochenende einen Abenteuerurlaub dort wie bei den Pfadpfindern zu verbringen. Ernstere Aufgaben gibt es auch bei Katastrophenbekämpfung u.ä.. Es sind Menschen, die ihren normalen Beruf haben und aus unterschiedlichsten Gründen der National Garde angehören. Aber in Zeiten des Krieges können die National Gardisten auch für den Kriegsdienst herangezogen werden. So sind, ich glaube, ein Drittel der Irak-Besatzung Gardisten. Manche sind schon über ein Jahr im Irak und viele haben ihr Leben und ihre Gesundheit dort verloren. Und nicht nur das, manche haben auch feststellen müßen, als sie in die USA zurückkehrten, dass auch ihr Job weg war. Da sind viele Dinge, die die Meisten nicht erwartet haben, als sie sich für die National Guard verpflichtet haben.

washingtonpost.com
Strains Felt By Guard Unit on Eve Of War Duty

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 19, 2004; Page A01

FORT DIX, N.J. -- The 635 soldiers of a battalion of the South Carolina National Guard scheduled to depart Sunday for a year or more in Iraq have spent their off-duty hours under a disciplinary lockdown in their barracks for the past two weeks.

The trouble began Labor Day weekend, when 13 members of the 1st Battalion of the 178th Field Artillery Regiment went AWOL, mainly to see their families again before shipping out. Then there was an ugly confrontation between members of the battalion`s Alpha and Charlie batteries -- the term artillery units use instead of "companies" -- that threatened to turn into a brawl involving three dozen soldiers, and required the base police to intervene.

That prompted a barracks inspection that uncovered alcohol, resulting in the lockdown that kept soldiers in their rooms except for drills, barred even from stepping outside for a smoke, a restriction that continued with some exceptions until Sunday`s scheduled deployment.

The battalion`s rough-and-tumble experience at a base just off the New Jersey Turnpike reflects many of the biggest challenges, strains and stresses confronting the Guard and Reserve soldiers increasingly relied on to fight a war 7,000 miles away.

This Guard unit was put on an accelerated training schedule -- giving the soldiers about 36 hours of leave over the past two months -- because the Army needs to get fresh troops to Iraq, and there are not enough active-duty or "regular" troops to go around. Preparation has been especially intense because the Army is short-handed on military police units, so these artillerymen are being quickly re-trained to provide desperately needed security for convoys. And to fully man the unit, scores of soldiers were pulled in from different Guard outfits, some voluntarily, some on orders.

As members of the unit looked toward their tour, some said they were angry, or reluctant to go, or both. Many more are bone-tired. Overall, some of them fear, the unit lacks strong cohesion -- the glue that holds units together in combat.

"Our morale isn`t high enough for us to be away for 18 months," said Pfc. Joshua Garman, 20, who, in civilian life, works in a National Guard recruiting office. "I think a lot of guys will break down in Iraq." Asked if he is happy that he volunteered for the deployment, Garman said, "Negative. No time off? I definitely would not have volunteered."

A series of high-level decisions at the Pentagon has come together to make life tough for soldiers and commanders in this battalion and others. The decisions include the Bush administration`s reluctance to sharply increase the size of the U.S. Army. Instead, the Pentagon is relying on the National Guard and Reserves, which provide 40 percent of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Also, the top brass has concluded that more military police are needed as security deteriorates and the violent insurgency flares in ways that were not predicted by Pentagon planners.

These soldiers will be based in northern Kuwait and will escort supply convoys into Iraq. That is some of the toughest duty on this mission, with every trip through the hot desert bringing the possibility of being hit by roadside bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and sniper fire.

The drilling to prepare this artillery unit for that new role has been intense. Except for a brief spell during Labor Day weekend, soldiers have been confined to post and prevented from wearing civilian clothes when off duty. The lockdown was loosened to allow soldiers out of the barracks in off hours to go to the PX, the gym and a few other places, if they sign out and move in groups.

"There`s a federal prison at Fort Dix, and a lot of us feel the people in there have more rights than we do," said Spec. Michael Chapman, 31, a construction worker from near Greenville, S.C.

Some complaints heard during interviews with the soldiers here last week centered on long hours and the disciplinary measures -- both of which the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Van McCarty, said were necessary to get the unit into shape before combat.

Sgt. Kelvin Richardson, 38, a machinist from Summerville, S.C., volunteered for this mission but says he now wishes he had not and has misgivings about the unit`s readiness. Richardson is a veteran of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, in which he served with the 1st Cavalry Division, an active-duty "regular" unit. This battalion "doesn`t come close" to that division, he said. "Active-duty, they take care of the soldiers."

Pfc. Kevin Archbald, 20, a construction worker from Fort Mill, S.C., who was transferred from another South Carolina Guard unit, also worries about his cobbled-together outfit`s cohesion. "My last unit, we had a lot of people who knew each other. We were pretty close." He said he does not feel that in the 178th. Here, he said, "I think there`s just a lot of frustration."

The daily headlines of surging violence in Iraq -- where U.S. forces crossed the 1,000-killed threshold last month -- were also part of the stress heard in soldiers` comments.

"I think before we deploy we should be allowed to go home and see our families for five days, because some of us might not come back," said Spec. Wendell McLeod, 40, a steelworker from Cheraw, S.C. "Morale is pretty low. . . . It`s leading to fights and stuff. That`s really all I got to say."

McCarty, the commander, disagrees with those assessments. Overall, he said, the unit`s morale is not poor. "The soldiers all have their issues to deal with, and some have dealt with it better than others," he said in an interview in his temporary office.

The problem, he said, is that he has to play the hand dealt him -- of assembling a new unit and getting it to work together while following a training schedule that has kept them going from dawn to long after dark, seven days a week, since mid-July.

"We are not here for annual training and then go home" -- that is, the typical schedule for National Guard units in the past -- said McCarty, assistant deputy director of law enforcement for the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources in civilian life. "We are here to prepare to go into a combat zone."

Some military leaders like to say that the best quality of life is having one -- a view to which McCarty appears to subscribe. "It is not my objective to win a popularity contest with my soldiers," he said. "My objective is to take them out and back home safely to their families."

As for the barracks lockdown, he said, "I am not going to apologize. . . . I did what I felt was necessary."

In the past, McCarty noted, members of Guard units usually had years of service together. That has enabled Guard units to compensate somewhat, using unit cohesion -- that is, mutual understanding and trust -- to make up for having less training time together than do active-duty units. But that was not the case with this battalion. "We didn`t have that degree of stabilization to start with," he said.

He also contends that his case is hardly unusual nowadays. "Other units have similar problems," he said. "Ours just make more headlines." The disciplinary measures were covered by some soldiers` hometown newspapers, perhaps because it is one of the largest mobilizations of the South Carolina Guard since Sept. 11, 2001.

Sgt. Maj. Clarence Gamble, who as the top noncommissioned officer for the battalion keeps a close eye on morale and discipline, said he does not see any big problems. "I get out and see troops every day," he said. "From my talking to the troops, morale is good right now."

Indeed, some members of the unit agree with this view. "Overall, morale`s good," said Sgt. John Mahaffey. "But of course you`re going to have some who, no matter if you gave them their food on a gold platter, they`d still . . . whine." A car salesman from Spartanburg, S.C., Mahaffey, 41, said he volunteered to go to Iraq and is glad he did. "I`m looking forward to it," he said. The unit is essentially ready to go, he said. "If you wait till everything`s perfect, you`ll never get anything accomplished."

Gamble defended the lockdown that followed the fighting. "I think that what we did at the time was something that we needed to do to make sure that we had command and control of the battalion," he said. He added, "I don`t think it was a detriment to morale, because it was short-lived."

He also says that unit cohesion is developing. "We knew it was going to take some time to develop the chemistry. And it`s working."

As for volunteers who say they now regret it, "I think when our deployment is over, people will have different opinions."

Gamble, who at age 51 is a 33-year veteran of the Guard, said he is not worried about putting an already stressed unit into the cauldron of Iraq duty. "I haven`t ever been deployed before, myself," he said. But, he concluded, "I feel like this unit will handle this well. Once we get in-country and get into missions, I think the stress will level off."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Stop the Media Mergers

By Frank A. Blethen

Sunday, September 19, 2004; Page B07

Democracy is in crisis -- not in far parts of the world but right here in the United States.

As with most democracies, the greatest threat to ours is internal. The danger within is the loss of our Fourth Estate -- an independent and free press that is essential if Americans are to be knowledgeable and engaged in the democratic process.

Walter Lippmann said that a free press "should consist of many newspapers decentralized in their ownership and their management, and dependent for their support . . . upon the communities where they are written, where they are edited and where they are read."

From thousands of independent media outlets during Lippmann`s heyday in the middle of the past century, media ownership dropped to only 50 companies by 1983. Today what was a concern has become a nightmare: The majority of our media are controlled by just five companies.

Consider the frightening loss of diversity in media voices:

• Less than 20 percent of our newspapers are independent and locally owned.

• In just the past decade, the 10 largest owners of local television stations have tripled the number of stations they own.

• About one-third of the population now listens to radio stations owned by a single company.

Bad things happen when media conglomerates swallow up independent voices: Quality is diminished, local news and investigative journalism disappear, differing points of view vanish, community service becomes an afterthought, and jobs are eliminated. All are sacrificed in an incessant drive for ever-higher profits.

I`ve been speaking out against consolidation of media ownership and the loss of an independent press since 1988. It is a sad irony that my family now finds itself struggling to preserve the 108-year-old local independence of the Seattle Times in the face of an effort by our Joint Operating Agreement partner, the New York-based conglomerate Hearst, to gain ownership.

The relentless march of media consolidation has largely gone unreported in the mainstream press. After all, why would newspaper and media companies that already have control, and seek more, want their own outlets reporting stories that run counter to their financial interests?

The 1996 deregulation of radio virtually ended local ownership in that medium. Clear Channel now operates 1,240 radio stations nationwide and has gutted what once was an important network of independent, community-based stations generating news and information.

The Federal Communications Commission began its current review of broadcast rules in 2001, working quietly with the big media companies. Media behemoths such as Tribune Co. and Gannett were touting increased stock value to analysts on the assumption the FCC would enable further unbridled consolidation. The mainstream media didn`t report the story, and the FCC refused to engage the public -- holding only one public hearing, and that very reluctantly.

At the darkest moment, with the FCC poised to unleash the next great wave of destructive newspaper and media consoli- dation, a national grass-roots effort materialized. Nearly 2.3 million people sent messages to the FCC and Congress opposing FCC rule changes. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) called it the greatest spontaneous outpouring of citizen reaction he had seen. But the FCC went ahead and posted new, less restrictive rules designed to help the media conglomerates.

A June victory in a lawsuit led by the Media Access Project has at least temporarily helped protect our democracy by preventing these rule changes from taking effect.

Both the unprecedented outcry by citizens and the court victory have awakened Congress to the need to act. It`s a bipartisan awakening that reflects the public`s broad and passionate understanding that the loss of a free, independent press and diversity of media voices is antithetical to democracy.

Members of Congress and key committees are beginning to express interest in hearings and legislation to stop this dangerous consolidation. Next year the Commerce Committee is required to revisit the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This will be an important review, and a critical opportunity to set new public policy.

In the meantime, Congress should begin hearings to engage the American people in discussing and seeking solutions to this vital national issue. The goal should be to create an environment where we can again look to America`s newspapers and other media for diverse ownership and journalism that isn`t driven solely by profit margins.

Specific areas of focus should include exploring all legal avenues to ensure diverse newspaper ownership, including our antitrust laws; keeping and vigorously enforcing current FCC broadcast rules; re-regulating radio; prohibiting same-market ownership of more than one type of medium (newspaper, television, radio).

We are at a critical juncture. We can allow the media moguls to keep aggregating and let American democracy erode. Or we can take action to end this march of consolidation and save independent newspapers and other media for the citizens of this country.

The writer is publisher of the Seattle Times.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 207 Bush 331
[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]


http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep19.html
News from the Votemaster

Mason-Dixon has surveyed six swing states: Arizona, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia, and Bush is ahead in all of them. And unlike some of the other pollsters who work for one side or the other, Mason-Dixon, at least claims to be neutral. Noteworthy today is that even New Hampshire has switched to Bush, bringing his score in the electoral college to 331, its highest level since this site went live on May 24. But it is important to note that many states are still very close and could change quickly.

Tägliche Polling Daten von Rassmussen

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.h…

Sunday September 19, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows President George W. Bush with 48% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 46%. The Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern.
Election 2004
Date Bush Kerry
Today 47.8 46.1
Sept 18 49.4 44.8
Sept 17 49.2 45.2
Sept 16 49.3 44.7
Sept 15 47.3 46.4
Sept 14 47.1 46.5
Sept 13 47.2 46.4
Sept 12 48.3 45.2
Sept 11 47.5 46.1
Sept 10 47.8 46.2
Sept 9 47.5 46.8
Sept 8 48.2 46.5
Sept 7 47.3 47.3
Sept 6 47.6 46.5
Sept 5 47.6 46.4

Our latest Electoral College projection shows Bush leading 213-175. Neither man can count on the 270 Electoral Votes needed for victory (150 Electoral Votes remain in the Toss-Up category).

[Joerver]

Sunday, September 19, 2004
War News for September 19, 2004 draft

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

Bring ‘em on: Three US soldiers wounded by car bomb near Baghdad airport.

Bring ‘em on: Two US soldiers killed, eight wounded by car bomb in Baghdad.

Bring ‘em on: US troops launch anti-insurgent offensive in Ramadi.

Bring ‘em on: Four Iraqis killed in firefight with US troops near Fallujah.

Bring ‘em on: US troops raid homes of al-Sadr officials in Baghdad.

Bring ‘em on: Three Iraqis wounded by roadside bomb in Baghdad.

Bring ‘em on: Four Iraqis killed, five wounded in US air strike near Fallujah.

Britain announces troop cutbacks in Iraq. “The British Army is to start pulling troops out of Iraq next month despite the deteriorating security situation in much of the country, The Observer has learnt. The main British combat force in Iraq, about 5,000-strong, will be reduced by around a third by the end of October during a routine rotation of units.”

Failure. “The extent to which the situation is deteriorating may not be obvious to the Iraqi government itself, or to its American allies. Mr Allawi lives under the protection of US security men. He and his ministers are under constant threat of assassination, while their officials frequently have to take cover from mortar bombs lobbed into the Green Zone (now officially called the international zone). The US embassy, equally isolated, is spending $200m (£110m ) fortifying and refurbishing Saddam Hussein`s old Republican Palace to house some of its 900 staff members. The US public is just as ignorant of the surging violence in Iraq because, ironically, it is now too dangerous for American television crews and print journalists to cover it. In the battle for Najaf in August, US correspondents with the dateline ‘Najaf’ on their copy, or reports to camera, were often "embedded" with US forces several miles away from the fighting. The result? Network news in the US gives the quite false impression that Iraq is a crisis under control.”

Another failure. “Twelve weeks after Americans transferred sovereignty to Iraqis, he is more endangered than ever. If Dr. Allawi was popular among moderate Iraqis in the first weeks after his interim government took over in June, it is plain now that his grace period has expired. In the suicide bombings and attacks on American military vehicles in the last week in Baghdad, at least 75 Iraqi civilians, policemen and police recruits were killed. One constant was the fury that survivors turned on the Allawi government, accused of being the creation of the American troops who brought miseries to Iraq, and of failing so far to stem the growing violence.”

Fix what you broke and leave. “Iraq is struggling with a guerrilla war, a stagnant economy and widespread despair. Many of its people are ambivalent about the continuing U.S. presence. Among the great majority of Iraqis who applauded the downfall of Saddam Hussein, there is deep resentment of what they view as Washington`s myriad missteps. Chief among them is disbanding the military and police forces, a step they blame for today`s rampant lack of security. Iraqis consistently identify lawlessness and violence as their country`s gravest problems. Polls show increasing anti-U.S. sentiment and a growing sense that American forces should get out and leave things to the Iraqis. Despite such complaints, many Iraqis hesitate to endorse an immediate U.S. pullout, before some semblance of an effective Iraqi national security apparatus is in place. Some of those angriest about perceived U.S. missteps are the ones most adamant that U.S. forces stick around and try and patch things up, or at least assist in elections scheduled for early next year.”

Mahdi Army refuses to disband. “A new round of talks to cease hostilities in the Baghdad slum of Sadr City has ended in deadlock, with fighters loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr refusing American demands to disband and turn in weapons, both sides said Sunday.”

Lieutenant AWOL is “pleased with the progress in Iraq.”

Pre-deployment lockdown.

The trouble began Labor Day weekend, when 13 members of the 1st Battalion of the 178th Field Artillery Regiment went AWOL, mainly to see their families again before shipping out. Then there was an ugly confrontation between members of the battalion`s Alpha and Charlie batteries -- the term artillery units use instead of "companies" -- that threatened to turn into a brawl involving three dozen soldiers, and required the base police to intervene.

That prompted a barracks inspection that uncovered alcohol, resulting in the lockdown that kept soldiers in their rooms except for drills, barred even from stepping outside for a smoke, a restriction that continued with some exceptions until Sunday`s scheduled deployment.

The battalion`s rough-and-tumble experience at a base just off the New Jersey Turnpike reflects many of the biggest challenges, strains and stresses confronting the Guard and Reserve soldiers increasingly relied on to fight a war 7,000 miles away.

This Guard unit was put on an accelerated training schedule -- giving the soldiers about 36 hours of leave over the past two months -- because the Army needs to get fresh troops to Iraq, and there are not enough active-duty or "regular" troops to go around. Preparation has been especially intense because the Army is short-handed on military police units, so these artillerymen are being quickly re-trained to provide desperately needed security for convoys. And to fully man the unit, scores of soldiers were pulled in from different Guard outfits, some voluntarily, some on orders.



Draft notice. “Where to find the extra troops to fight a seemingly intractable insurgency that echoes Vietnam has become a pressing question. And although you wouldn`t hear it from the Bush Administration, the prospect of deploying a draft for the first time in a generation may be edging towards reality.”

PTSD. “A leader of the Purvis unit said that 60 to 65 percent of the National Guardsmen show signs of combat stress. ‘A lot of them have made statements that they just don`t feel like they fit in anymore,’ said Staff Sgt. John M. Hankins, who has been with the unit for 25 years. ‘The same amount have trouble being in crowded places, such as restaurants.’ Hankins said many of them have bouts of anger and a few report nightmares. Several of their wives have called asking for help. Hankins estimates that 90 percent saw violence that affected them. Most of them were rocked by frequent mortar attacks on their camps or went on convoys that were hit by improvised explosive devices, the roadside booby traps now used by insurgents.”

October surprise? “A senior American commander said the military intended to take back Falluja and other rebel areas by year`s end. The commander did not set a date for an offensive but said that much would depend on the availability of Iraqi military and police units, which would be sent to occupy the city once the Americans took it. The American commander suggested that operations in Falluja could begin as early as November or December, the deadline the Americans have given themselves for restoring Iraqi government control across the country.”

Commentary

Editorial: “The official White House line, dutifully echoed by Republican members of Congress, was that the rebuilding of Iraq was going ahead just fine. The only reason that reconstruction appeared to be in trouble was that the media reported it that way. You don`t hear that anymore. Indeed, you are beginning to hear Republican criticism of the lack of progress in Iraq…Security concerns and bureaucratic foot-dragging may play a role in the failure to launch timely infrastructure projects that would get restless and angry Iraqis off the streets and into productive jobs. But the indications are that the administration was overwhelmed by the scope of the problem.”

Editorial: “Here are the two central truths about the war in Iraq that voters might want to ponder before Nov. 2: (1) The situation in Iraq, while not hopeless, is perilous and getting worse by the day - in part because almost every prediction upon which President Bush`s team has based its actions has been proven wrong. Bush`s many adjustments in Iraq policy (the unkind would call them flip-flops) haven`t compensated for how the occupation was bungled at its start. (2) The Iraq invasion, far from being a bold stroke in the war on terror, was a fatal distraction from it that has left America more vulnerable.”

Editorial: “Yet Mr. Bush, who spent the week campaigning for reelection, has offered scant acknowledgment of the quandary he faces or of the worsening state of a mission that has dominated more than half of his first term. His description of Iraq is bland to the point of dishonesty: ‘Despite ongoing acts of violence,’ he repeated Friday, ‘that country has a strong prime minister, they`ve got a national council and they are going to have elections in January of 2005.’ Not only has Mr. Bush not said how, or whether, he intends to respond to the worsening situation; he doesn`t really admit it exists.”

Editorial: “We must remember that the United States cited the U.N. Security Council`s resolution that called for the abolition of Iraq`s WMD as the justification for invading that country. And it was Secretary of State Powell who, in February last year just before the opening of the war, presented many pieces of evidence at the Security Council and ardently warned of an imminent Iraqi threat. The United States invaded Iraq, after all, without a Security Council resolution that explicitly approved the war. Countries that nonetheless supported the United States, including Japan, asked for the understanding of their peoples by contending that Iraq had WMD. It appears, however, that Iraq did not possess such weapons. The problem is more than just the fact that the world was not told the truth. A war takes lives of many people, including noncombatants. A war is fraught with danger of causing confusion and disorder instead of peace. The actual conditions in Iraq prove that. As the United States argues, Saddam`s government was a dangerous dictatorial regime. But this war is too costly for the United States and the world. Countries around the world likely want the United States to take responsibility for the misinformation and mistakes that led to the war.”

Editorial: “On the campaign trail, an odd double standard has appeared: Sen. John Kerry gets hammered unmercifully for not having what critics believe is a viable plan for dealing with Iraq. But President Bush gets a pass on 1) having personally created this monumental American disaster and 2) having no plan before the war and having none now to clean it up. Kerry does deal in nuance, but that can be a good thing when the alternative is to push blindly ahead with a policy that is demonstrably wrongheaded. Too, as author and journalist Seymour Hersh observed recently, the reason Kerry`s solutions may seem lacking to some is that there simply are no good answers to Iraq.”

Analysis: “As clouds of disaster gather over the West`s grand project to reconceive Iraq, a critical ‘tipping point’ has now been reached, and confidence that the goals of the American occupation can be achieved is fast ebbing away. The many terror groups active in Iraq have launched an overt psychological war of intimidation against the US and its allies, while international critics of the American-led operation have also begun speaking out. The foreign civilian presence inside the country is dwindling fast, as further hostage-taking raids are mounted: two Americans and a British contractor were snatched from their compound in the heart of Baghdad yesterday morning, and some 20 Westerners are unaccounted for after the latest upsurge in kidnappings.”

Opinion: “Instead of a gold star, Sue Niederer, 55, of Hopewell, N.J., got handcuffed, arrested and charged with a crime for daring to challenge the Bush policy in Iraq, where her son, Army First Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, died in February while attempting to disarm a bomb. She came to a Laura Bush rally last week at a firehouse in Hamilton, N.J., wearing a T-shirt that blazed with her agony and anger: ‘President Bush You Killed My Son.’ Mrs. Niederer tried to shout while the first lady was delivering her standard ode to her husband`s efforts to fight terrorism. She wanted to know why the Bush twins weren`t serving in Iraq ‘if it`s such a justified war,’ as she put it afterward. The Record of Hackensack, N.J., reported that the mother of the dead soldier was boxed in by Bush supporters yelling ‘Four more years!’ and wielding ‘Bush/Cheney’ signs. Though she eventually left voluntarily, she was charged with trespassing while talking to reporters.”

Casualty Reports

Local story: Washington State Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: North Carolina Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: Kansas soldier wounded in Iraq.

Local story: Washington State soldier wounded in Iraq.



# posted by yankeedoodle : 4:49 AM
Comments (4) | Trackback (0)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Ed Naha: `Georgie in Wonderland`
Date: Sunday, September 19 @ 08:09:59 EDT


By Ed Naha

The same day The New York Times revealed that a classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July said that the U.S. was totally Cheneyed in terms of Iraq, our beloved President declared at a rally: "Freedom is on the march (in Iraq)."

All those in attendance, including The Mad Hatter, The Mock Turtle and Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee, applauded heartily. Bush didn`t mention the NIE report which outlined three possible scenarios in Iraq: the worst being full-tilt Gonzo civil war, the best being ongoing instability (read: what we have now). The one in the middle? One-size-fits-all FUBAR.

Since Dubya has had this pessimistic report since July, you have to wonder about the reasoning behind his consistently rosy take on the war. It comes down to two possibilities : either he`s lying through his teeth to get re-elected or the man has so many holes in his head he whistles when he jogs.

"This country`s headed toward democracy," Bush said of Iraq. "There`s a strong prime minister in place. They have a national council and national elections are scheduled for January." (It may be the first election in history wherein a head count takes place only at the morgue.)


Kerry explains that Bush`s take on Iraq arises from the President "living in a fantasy world of spin." Kerry went on to comment about Bush. "He did not tell you that with each passing day, we`re seeing more chaos, more violence, more indiscriminate killings. He did not tell you that with each passing week, our enemies are getting bolder. He failed to tell you the truth. You deserve better."

Part of this is due, of course, to Dubya`s sense of swagger and stayin` the course. Damn the facts! He knows better. It`s a trust your gut kinda thaing.

You know things are going badly in Iraq when former US defense secretary Robert McNamara, a key hawk in the Vietnam War, says "They made a mistake. It`s a terrible problem and I don`t know how it will end."

Oh, what a lovely war!

Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told Sidney Blumenthal in The Guardian: "Bush hasn`t found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it`s worse. He`s lost on that front. That he`s going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It`s lost. Right now, the course we`re on, we`re achieving bin Laden`s ends."

Odom went on to add: "I`ve never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defense and the military. There`s a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced (by the war) have been the Iranians and al-Quaida."

God Nammit, look at Freedom march!

Meanwhile, the pResident, in an effort to hold on to those Iraqi elections, come Hell or lobbed mortars, has proposed shifting $3.46 billion in reconstruction funds ($18.4 billion was approved last year. Only a little over $1 billion has been spent because of the old adage: "If you build it, they will come…and blow it up.") to Iraqi security concerns. This has not pleased a lot of senators, including Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel who said that shifting the funds "does not add up in my opinion to a pretty picture, to a picture that shows that we`re winning. But it does add up to this: an acknowledgment that we are in deep trouble."

He noted: "It`s beyond pitiful, it`s beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous."

The official White House response? Here`s Scott McClellan. "You know, every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and hand-wringers who said it can`t be done."

Hey, Scott? It can`t. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage sums up the forthcoming elections in Iraq thusly: "We realize they might not be pretty, but they will be held."

Adding to the hilarity, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared, mid-week, that the Iraq invasion was illegal. Said Annan: "I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the security council, with the UN charter."

This, of course, was denied by every Administration rep within sprinting distance of a microphone, including US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher who said that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 allowed the war. It should be noted, after the passage of 1441, then-US ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said that 1441 did not authorize US military action.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Meanwhile, on the Wonderland campaign trail, Alice, I mean, Dubya, beamed: "Afghanistan is headed for a presidential election. It`s amazing when you think about it."

What`s really amazing is that this utterance came on the same day he declared that Afghanistan was number one on his list of evil drug-producing nations.

It also came the same day as the Taliban nearly offed Afghan President Hamid Karzai, firing a missile at his helicopter and declaring that all 18 Afghani candidates were "top targets now because they are running for the polls of a US-made election - an election that will create a government in the interest of the Americans."

And it came one day before the Administration declared it was sending over 1,000 more troops into Afghanistan to beef up security at election time.

Gee, freedom is on the march everywhere! Or, at least, in lock step.

And, so, as democracy spreads amid death and destruction and delusion, here`s our pResident summing up his long-term reasoning for going to war.

"Free societies are hopeful societies, and free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat - at the drop of a hat."

George W. Bush: the man who mistook a country for a hat.

http://mkanejeeves.com/

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Ein kleiner Ausflug in das US-Wahlrecht oder wie wird der US-Präsident gewählt?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/electoral-college.html


The Electoral College

The United States is the oldest continuously functioning democracy in the world. Its constitution was ratified in 1788 and has been amended only 27 times since then. The first 10 of these amendments, called the Bill of Rights, were approved in 1790. Amending the constitution is (by design) an exceptionally difficult procedure, as described near the end of this page.

The procedure for electing a president is spelled out in Article II. Each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to that state`s representation in Congress (Senate + House). Since each state has two senators and at least one Representative, every state has at least three electors. Currently California has the largest number of electors: 55. The electors meet in their respective state capitals in December of each election year to cast their votes for president and vice president. These electors, who together form the electoral college, are the ones who actually elect the president. If no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives elects the president, with each state having one vote. This happened in 1800 and again in 1824.

Each state is free to choose its electors as it wishes. In the 18th Century, America was largely rural and most people were farmers who knew little about politics. In this climate, a direct election of the president would probably have been difficult in any case. In the early days of the nation, electors were chosen due to their wisdom and knowledge of politics, not due to their preference for any particular candidate. Even in the modern world, direct election of a distant president is not always so easy. For example, the European Union does not have a direct election for its president. Instead, a complex system exists in which countries, not citizens, are the key players, exactly like the role of the states in the U.S.

Each state determines how its electors are chosen by state law and the process varies from state to state. In states with primary elections, each presidential candidate usually designates a slate of electors who then appear on the November ballot. The voters are then actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to one candidate or another. In caucus states, the electors may be chosen at the state caucus. Electors are actual human beings, with houses, children, jobs, and very occasionally, their own opinions. In most states, the slate of electors that gets the most votes wins and gets to travel to the state capital in December to vote for president and vice president. In the bitterly contested election in Florida in 2000, George Bush carried the state by 537 votes out of over six million cast, and thus got all 25 of Florida`s electoral votes. Since it is the electoral vote, not the popular vote, that actually elects the president, keeping track of it is crucial for people who want to know how the campaign is going. This website is designed to make it easy to track the electoral vote.

Many criticisms have been leveled at this 18th Century system. First, why have electoral votes at all? Why not just elect the president by popular vote? The reason this system has never changed is simple: politics. States with many buffalo and few people, like Wyoming, benefit from it and are not keen on changing it. Since every state gets at least three electors, low-population states have proportionally far more political power than they would have in a direct election system. The number of voters per elector is about four times smaller in the three-elector states than in the most-populous states, as shown in this table. The fact that nearly all the low-population states are heavily Republican adds to the difficulties of changing the system. Direct election of the president would eliminate the current bias in favor of the Republicans.

Getting rid of the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. Amending the constitution is (by design) an exceptionally difficult process requiring not only 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress, but also by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Even in 1788, the Founding Fathers knew that politicians often made outrageous promises. They wanted to make sure the constitution, which most Americans regard as sacred, could only be changed when there was a massive consensus in favor of the change. To give a modern example, president George W. Bush has called for a constitutional amendment stating that a marriage shall be a union between exactly one man and one woman. The Founding Fathers well understood that political slogans like this should not find their way into the constitution too easily, so they made the process very difficult. Changing the electoral college system will not be easy.

A second criticism of the electoral college is its winner-take-all character. If Florida`s 25 electoral votes had been split 13 for George Bush and 12 for Al Gore, then Al Gore would now be president. There is nothing in the constitution mandating winner-take-all. The manner for choosing electors is regulated by state law. In fact, two states, Maine and Nebraska, do not use winner-take-all. In those states, the winner of each congressional district gets one elector and the winner of the state as a whole gets an additional two. Any state that wanted to adopt this system need only pass a state law to do so. No constitutional amendment is required.

In his book Fixing Elections: The Failure of America`s Winner-Take-All Politics Steven Hill argues for Instant Runoff Voting. In this system, each voter would designate a first choice, a second choice, etc. After all the votes have been cast, everyone`s first choice is counted. If some candidate has a majority, he or she is elected. If not, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is disqualified and his or her votes redistributed to the voter`s second choice candidate. This process is repeated until some candidate has a majority. In 2000 under this system, voters could have designated Ralph Nader as their first choice and Al Gore as their second choice. When the first choice votes were counted and it was discovered, for example, that Nader came in last (not really, since there were even more minor candidates), his votes would then have been given to the second choice candidate. In effect, a voter could have said: "I want Ralph Nader but if I can`t have him, I`ll settle for Al Gore." With instant runoff voting, this is possible. This system is used in some municipal elections. Again, any state that chose to adopt it need only pass a state law to do so. No constitutional amendment is required.

The third objection to the electoral college is the so-called faithless elector problem. As mentioned above, electors are actual human beings, with all the properties that go along with that. In particular, when they meet in December in their respective state capitals, they sometimes do not vote for the candidate they are officially pledged to. In 1948, for example, Truman elector Preston Parks of Tennessee, voted for Strom Thurmond who was running on the pro-segregation Dixiecrat ticket. In 1960, Nixon elector Henry D. Irwin of Oklahoma voted for Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd, then an ardent segregationist. In 2000, one of Gore`s D.C.`s electors, Barbara Lett-Simmons, cast a blank ballot in protest of the District`s lack of congressional representation. None of these faithless electors changed the outcome of their respective elections, but in a close election in the future, it might be possible for a candidate to bribe enough electors to swing the election. At the very least, state law could make voting the wrong way a felony with life in prison as the punishment.

If Congress wanted to keep the electoral college but make it fairer, there is a simple (but unlikely) solution: increase the size of the House of Representatives. There is nothing in the constitution mandating a particular size except that each member must represent at least 30,000 people (which puts an upper limit on the House of about 10,000 members). In fact, the House has been expanded repeatedly in the past as the nation grew. The most recent expansion was in 1911, when the U.S. population was about 93 million, so a representative had 212,000 constituents. With the current population of 293 million, a representative has 674,000 constituents. To bring this number back to its 1911 value, the House should be expanded to 1370 members. Since a state`s electoral vote is equal to its congressional representation, with 1370 House members, the effect of the 100 senators would be much smaller and the electoral votes would be almost proportional to population. To increase the size of the House, Congress would merely have to pass a law; the states would not be involved at all.

Even without any changes, the system does offer some flexibility. In New York State, for example, there is a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party, and both are on the ballot at every election. The Liberal Party usually nominates the same person as the Democrats and the Conservative Party usually nominates the same person as the Republicans. As long as each party gets enough votes, it retains its status as a recognized party and gets on the ballot automatically at the next election. It has been suggested that if Ralph Nader were to choose the Kerry electors as his electors in each state he gets on the ballot, then people could express their support for him, and provide impetus to his movement, but a vote for Nader would (literally) be a vote for Kerry. This would no doubt encourage many people to vote for him knowing that such a vote would not help George Bush.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Das ist das erste Mal, dass aus den USA das Argument kommt, dass mit der Wiederwahl Bushs weitere Kriege drohen und dass 51% der Wähler darüber besorgt sind..
Das scheint ein gutes Signal zu sein.
Die Untersuchungunge des FBI`s gegen einige Neocons im Pentagon wegen Spionage zu Gunsten Israels, scheinen doch nicht ohne Wirkung geblieben sein.
Nur Kerry wird sich dieser Argumentation niemals bedienen.


Poll: Possible Second War Worries Voters
By PAULINE JELINEK
Associated Press Writer

12:46 PM PDT, September 19, 2004

WASHINGTON — Playing on the fear factor, Vice President Dick Cheney suggested in a campaign speech there might be another terrorist attack on the United States if John Kerry were in the White House.

President Bush`s opponents` are raising their own worst fears, including the potential for more wars during a second Bush term.

"That`s fear-mongering," said Joseph Carafano, a 25-year Army veteran and former West Point professor who now is an analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The rhetoric continued during the weekend. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., speaking at a Saturday night fund-raiser in DeKalb, Ill., said his opinion is that the al-Qaida terror network could operate better with Kerry in the White House instead of Bush. Kerry`s running mate, John Edwards, issued a statement Sunday accusing Hastert of using the "politics of fear," which Edwards said is a "clear sign of weakness and failed leadership."

With fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq far from over, a Pew Research Center Poll found that 51 percent of voters surveyed said they do worry that Bush, if re-elected, would lead the country into another war.

"The Bush administration is on a crusade to make the world safe for democracy and part of that ... is eliminating countries of anti-Western aggression," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute think tank in Washington.

"They may not like me to say that on the eve of the election, but that`s a fact," Thompson said. "It`s less likely to happen with a Kerry administration."

Both Bush and Democrat Kerry have said they prefer diplomacy to deal with Iran and North Korea, which joined Iraq in "an axis of evil," as described by the president.

Under Bush, there is "reason for apprehension" because of his administration`s "actions and rhetoric" over the past four years, said Ted Galen Carpenter of the libertarian Cato Institute.

Carpenter also cited among Bush`s conservative supporters a "deep concern ... and fairly militant attitude" that the United States needs to "do something" about Iran, North Korea, Syria and perhaps other governments.

"In some extreme neoconservative circles," there have also been calls for "coercive measures against Saudi Arabia," Carpenter noted.

Those who think more wars in a second Bush administration are unlikely point out that there are not enough U.S. troops, given that the Pentagon already is struggling to keep up with violence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Others say the administration has no taste for another war after the unexpected difficulties of Iraq, and the bar has been raised for Congress and the American public as well. They say Americans will not so easily support another war after learning that prewar intelligence on Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction was false.

"I really don`t think, absent something like an invasion of South Korea (by communist rival North Korea), that we could sustain another one," Carafano said.

If forced into it by such a provocation, the Pentagon could most certainly do it by mobilizing more National Guard and Reserve troops and calling on allies, Carafano said.

But that would take the armed forces "to the edge," said Carafano, and would mean years to reconstitute the military in terms of troops readiness and resupplying equipment.

Others note that while the Army is stretched extremely thin now, the Air Force and Navy are not.

"So the talk that you hear within the conservative community about perhaps taking strong measures against Iran or North Korea would be feasible if it were confined to air strikes," Carpenter said. "Those who are concerned that a second Bush presidency might go down that path might have some foundation for their concerns."

Some fear the United States could provoke a war -- even if it did not fire the first shot -- by focusing on tough talk and actions, rather than negotiations.

"It`s this process of bluster and threat and escalation that could lead to war," said Michael O`Hanlon of the liberal-leaning Brookings Institute. "I don`t want to say that the chance of war is particularly high, but I think it would be higher under Bush than under Kerry."

On North Korea, Kerry favors direct negotiations. Bush has instead collective talks involving six countries.

With Iran, some fear any effort to aid anti-government forces could get the United States "deeply involved in Iran`s internal politics with unpredictable consequences," Carpenter said.




Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

http://www.pleasurecaptains.com/low.html

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Iraqis tell Britain: Release our prisoners or we kill hostage
48-hour ultimatum to UK. Chilling video shows captives. Blair warned of Iraq `chaos`
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad and Raymond Whitaker

19 September 2004

A 62-year-old British engineer was last night less than 48 hours from death at the hands of his kidnappers in Iraq, intensifying the atmosphere of crisis at today`s meeting between Tony Blair and the Iraqi interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi.
[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
In footage issued by his captors, Kenneth Bigley and two American colleagues seized with him, Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong, were shown kneeling and blindfolded, with a hooded gunman pointing his weapon at the head of one of the men. A terrorist from the group, one of the most ruthless fighting the US-led occupation of Iraq, said their throats would be cut unless Muslim women prisoners were released from Abu Ghraib and Umm Qasr prisons. The Ministry of Defence and the US military both insisted last night that no women were held at either jail.

The threat to the three hostages came on another day of extreme violence across Iraq, the worst incident being an attack by a suicide bomber on a National Guard headquarters in the northern oil city of Kirkuk, which killed 23 people and wounded 53 ­ mostly teenagers queuing up for jobs in the military.

In Baghdad, two US soldiers were killed and eight injured by a car bomb. In the southern city of Basra, British troops clashed for the second day with militia fighting for Muqtada al-Sadr. Three people were killed and two hurt. A soldier was wounded.

The hostage crisis and the deteriorating security situation added to the pressure on Mr Blair, who, according to leaked documents, was warned a year before the war to oust Saddam Hussein that there could be chaos after an invasion. The top-secret documents, published yesterday, also show the Bush administration was assured in March 2002 that the PM would support "regime change" in Iraq, and that Mr Blair was advised he would have to "wrongfoot" Saddam into providing an excuse to go to war.

Forced to respond yesterday, Mr Blair denied that he was "warned of chaos". A leaked memo from the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in fact warned that "it`simportant that we don`t replace one dictator, Saddam Hussein, with another. I totally agree with that."

The Prime Minister added: "The idea that we did not have a plan for afterwards is simply not correct. We did and we have unfolded that plan, but there are people in Iraq who are determined to stop us."

On the kidnap of Mr Bigley, Mr Blair said: "We are monitoring the situation closely, we are doing everything we can." He refused to say any more "for the sake of the hostage".

The statement threatening the three men was made by the Tawhid and Jihad group, led by the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom the US says is the top al-Qa`ida associate in Iraq. Zarqawi`s group has claimed responsibility for many of the bloodiest attacks in Iraq, and in May it released video footage of the beheading of an American hostage, Nicholas Berg.

Mr Bigley, who comes from the Liverpool area, was seized on Thursday with his American fellow civilian contractors at the house they shared in a Baghdad suburb.

Mr Blair and Mr Allawi will meet today, and the Iraqi Prime Minister travels to Washington later this week. He has failed to deliver the security yearned for by Iraqis since the US occupation officially ended on 28 June. Instead, violence has got worse. American troops closed the airport road yesterday because insurgents had planted large bombs beside it. Last night, al-Jazeera showed a videotape of a militant Iraqi group holding 10 employees of a US-Turkish company. The kidnappers threatened to kill the men if their company did not withdraw from Iraq within three days.

Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, said: "What comes through these documents ... is that the only reason for the war in Iraq was the Bush administration`s obsession with regime change. They spell out bluntly ... that there was no evidence of a greater threat from Iraq and that there was no convincing evidence of a link with terrorism."

The other revelation, said Mr Cook, "is the frank advice of diplomats that there was no legal justification for the war, and therefore they should use the UN to `wrongfoot` Saddam". The former chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was "cynically used in the hope that he would provide an excuse for war. In the event, he found no weapons."

He added that it was surprising that the documents had not been released to either the Hutton or Butler inquiries.


19 September 2004 23:05

©2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Abduction, murder, mayhem in the week the peace was lost
As the spread and severity of violence increases, Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad finds the Iraqi government`s position more hopeless than ever

19 September 2004

Iraq this weekend is a country out of control. Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, meets Tony Blair today amid a crisis over a British engineer kidnapped with two American colleagues, a spate of suicide bombings and armed clashes from one end of the country to the other.

Mr Allawi himself has full authority only within the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad. A few hundred yards away, the Haifa Street district, a stronghold of the resistance, can be penetrated only by US tanks and infantry backed by helicopters.

When the US and Britain as the occupying powers in Iraq transferred sovereignty to an interim government led by Mr Allawi on 28 June, many Iraqis expressed hopes that security would improve. Instead it has got worse. Last week suicide bombs ripped through the centre of Baghdad. The number of attacks on US troops is increasing. Casualties from American air strikes pour into the hospital in Fallujah, its floor awash with blood.

The severity of the violence has increased, with some 300 people killed in the past week, but so has the geographical area in which it is occurring. Last week there was fighting from Tal Afar, a city in the north bordering Turkey, to Basra in the far south, on the border with Kuwait.

The extent to which the situation is deteriorating may not be obvious to the Iraqi government itself, or to its American allies. Mr Allawi lives under the protection of US security men. He and his ministers are under constant threat of assassination, while their officials frequently have to take cover from mortar bombs lobbed into the Green Zone (now officially called the international zone). The US embassy, equally isolated, is spending $200m (£110m ) fortifying and refurbishing Saddam Hussein`s old Republican Palace to house some of its 900 staff members.

The US public is just as ignorant of the surging violence in Iraq because, ironically, it is now too dangerous for American television crews and print journalists to cover it. In the battle for Najaf in August, US correspondents with the dateline "Najaf" on their copy, or reports to camera, were often "embedded" with US forces several miles away from the fighting. The result? Network news in the US gives the quite false impression that Iraq is a crisis under control.

Security for foreigners - including the foreign media - has got even worse since Najaf. Kidnappers are better organised and more brazen, as the expert seizure of the British hostage, Kenneth Bigley, and his two US colleagues demonstrates. They were snatched from their villa in the affluent al-Mansur district of Baghdad, while two Italian women aid workers, who are still missing, were kidnapped by a large gang in their office in the centre of Baghdad in the middle of the day. Even Iraqi journalists with local contacts travel with trepidation down the main road south from Baghdad through the resistance bastion of Mahmoudiyah, or west through Fallujah and Ramadi.

Mr Allawi, an avuncular-looking man resident in London for 30 years, always had a difficult task. He has almost no political base in Iraq and is therefore reliant on the 138,000-strong US military. His first concern should have been to make friends and try to expand the constituencies supporting him, but his dilemma is that the one of the few things that unites Iraqis outside Kurdistan is dislike of the US military occupation - polls in June showed it had the support of 2 per cent of the Arab population. Mr Allawi needs to distance himself from the Americans, but he cannot, because he depends on them.

To his credit, he did try at first to chart a more independent course. In early July he mooted an amnesty for insurgents who had not launched suicide bombs against Iraqis, but had killed American troops. US officials were aghast, since this was a tacit admission that attacks on American soldiers are popular.

Mr Allawi also tried at first to conciliate the Shia militant Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers, but by August he was locked into a battle in Najaf with Mr Sadr`s Mehdi Army. The Prime Minister wanted to show that he was not going to be pushed around, but some 400 Iraqis were killed and 2,500 wounded, according to the Health Ministry in Baghdad. Worse, the fighting was almost all done by the US army and air force, and although the Mehdi Army finally withdrew, the battle failed to eliminate Mr Sadr or his militiamen as a powerful force in Iraqi politics.

Mr Allawi has made conciliatory statements in recent weeks, but as he speaks the US launches air strikes against "terrorist" targets in Fallujah, Ramadi and Sadr City. Against American claims that these are carried out with pinpoint accuracy, Iraqis see television footage of children, swathed in bandages, being carried into hospitals by weeping parents. In Haifa Street last week, US helicopters fired twice into a crowd, killing 13 people, while claiming that they had come under anti-aircraft fire. But footage of the moments before the rockets struck, killing the al-Arabiyah satellite television correspondent, proved that there was no gunfire.

The police and the Iraqi army are being rapidly built up - its would-be recruits are frequently slaughtered as they queue for jobs - but these are not combat troops. Mr Allawi needs some kind of accommodation with Iraqi militants, but he cannot do so, because Washington wants to persuade US voters before the presidential election in November that it has the crisis in Iraq under control. This rules out compromising or negotiating with what the White House claims are a tiny minority of militants - the battered remnants of Saddam Hussein`s regime or foreign fighters linked to al-Qa`ida.

Given such oversimplification, the US and the interim government cannot avoid alienating a country fragmented by ethnic, religious, social and political divisions. The most important communities are the Shia Arabs (60 per cent of the population), the Sunni Arabs (18 per cent) and the Kurds (18 per cent). But Iraqis also live in a world of strong family, clan, tribal and regional loyalties, providing a multitude of friction points.

This month, for instance, US and Iraqi government forces have besieged Tal Afar, a city west of Mosul with a population of 250,000. In two weeks some 50 people have been killed. The US claims it is battling foreign fighters from nearby Syria, former Baath party members and Sunni Arab guerrillas. But Tal Afar is inhabited 90 per cent by Turkmens, an Iraqi minority who are also Shias. They are in conflict with Kurds who inhabit this part of Mosul province, and the Turkmens say the Kurds, close allies of the Americans in the war last year, have manipulated the US army into an assault on their ethnic rivals.

A map cannot show the exact distribution of power in present-day Iraq because insurgents, the US military, the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army may all be present at the same time. One Iraqi friend who had a minor traffic accident in central Baghdad last week was horrified to discover that the vehicle he had run into was filled with fighters clutching machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

Iraqis are desperate for security, but the country is getting more dangerous by the day, and Mr Allawi is blamed. American officials, however, are more interested in putting an optimistic gloss on what is happening in the run-up to the presidential election. "We never thought it would be easy," said US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage last week. "We do expect an increase in violence as we approach the January elections."

Mr Armitage could hardly have missed the point more comprehensively. Not only would Mr Allawi lose any kind of vote today, elections acceptable to most Iraqis cannot be held in a country so divided and racked by violence. The struggle for power in Iraq is only beginning - and it will be fought with guns, not at the ballot box.


19 September 2004 23:08


©2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Der neuste Poll. Interessant die Bush-Werte über sein Handeln als Präsident, Wiederwahl und ob das Land in die richtige Richtung geht.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=867" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=867
September 19, 2004

Bush Continues To Hold Slim Lead Over Kerry (46%-43%); President Widens the Gap In the War on Terrorism (75%-19%)- While Kerry Leads On Other Top Issues, New Zogby America Poll Reveals

With just 44 days to go before voters cast their ballots, President George W. Bush continues to hold a slim lead over Senator John Kerry (46%-43%), according to a new Zogby America poll. The telephone poll of 1066 likely voters was conducted from Friday through Sunday (September 17-19, 2004). Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.1%.



In the ticket match-up, President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney hold a three-point lead over Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and North Carolina Senator John Edwards (47%-44%). * The results here are statically tied with our previous two polls.



President Bush’s overall job performance rating has virtually remained the same as our last two polls at 47%, with more than half of respondents continuing to express their disapproval.


More than two in five of respondents say that the country is headed on the wrong track (43%), while half (50%) say the U.S. is on the right track.



When asked if President Bush "deserves to be re-elected", 47% of likely voters responded positively, while half (50%) still say that it is "time for someone new."



Nearly one in three (29%) continue to identify jobs and the economy as the top issue facing the country, followed by the war on Iraq (19%); the war on terrorism (17%); health care (12%); and education (4%).

Pollster John Zogby: "While the overall numbers remain unchanged, there are some revealing cross-tabulations. Kerry continues to lead on four of five top issues but some possible worrisome details. Among those who say the economy is the top issue, Kerry now leads only 49% to 43%. He maintains wide leads among those who cite the war in Iraq as top issue (55% to 37%), those who cite health care (56% to 32%), and those who cite education (53% to 36%). But the President has widened his advantage over those who cite the war on terrorism to a 56 point lead -- 75% to 19%. This is still very close but has Kerry stopped the bleeding?

“Kerry`s problem continues to be that he has not energized his base as much has Bush has energized his own. The President leads 92% to 5% among those say the country is headed in the right direction, while Kerry only earns the support of 79% of those who feel the country is on the wrong track. Bush gets 10% of this latter group while 9% are undecided. Kerry will have to convince at least half of that 9% to vote for him."

“The President’s barometric readings are still not great – net negatives on job performance, the country’s direction, and his re-elect – but the best that can be said for his 46% in the horse race is that it is still better than 43% for his challenger.”

Zogby International conducted telephone interviews of 1066 likely voters chosen at random nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from Friday, September 17 through Sunday, September 19, 2004. The margin of error is +/-3.1 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

Hier noch eine Erklärung von Zogby zu den Telefonumfragen:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=866

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE][Table align=center]
HAMSTER HILLS, IN (IWR News Parody) - In a speech today in Indiana before the Christian Pet Shop Owners For Bush-Cheney, President Bush vowed, if reelected, he would kill even more people than Saddam Hussein did, if need be, to promote his apocalyptic neocon vision for democracy in the Middle East.

"I can see now why Saddam Hussein had to kill so many of these damn Muslim bastards. It was the only friggin` way he could maintain order for Christ sakes! [urlI thought they would have built me a goddamn statue or something.]http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6273276 That`s what Cheney said would happen anyway.

Well if Saddam could do it, so the hell can I, and I promise you pet owners today that I will kill a lot more people than even he did to promote my surrealistic views!

It`s simple really.

For democracy to take hold, the people have to cooperate with the US government.

All we have to do is get rid of those traitors who disagree with us. It`s sort of like what my brother Jeb did with those ballots in Florida in 2000. He prevented those "felons" from disrupting the electoral process, and we aim to do the same thing in Iraq.

So far, we have only killed a measly 30,000 or so Iraqi civilians. So how can we expect the Iraqi people to take us seriously?

All we need to do is restore Saddam`s iron fist of authoritarian control by killing and/or torturing all of the dissenters.

According to that recent [urlU.S. Intelligence Report]http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6259399, we will only need to kill several million more of those damn agitators before we prevail, hopefully," said Bush to the polite applause of the pet shop owners.[/url][/url]
[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Dazu siehe auch die Links in der Satire im vorherigen Posting!

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 19. September 2004, 20:37
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,318811,00.html

Irak-Strategie

Parteifreunde werfen Bush Inkompetenz vor

Führende Mitglieder der Republikanischen Partei haben die Irak-Strategie George W. Bushs scharf kritisiert. Senator John McCain sprach von "groben Fehlern" der Bush-Regierung und plädierte für den sofortigen Einsatz von Bodentruppen, um das Chaos im Irak in den Griff zu bekommen.

Washington - Gleich in mehreren TV-Shows haben sich führende Mitglieder der Republikanischen Partei gegen die Irak-Politik ihres Parteifreundes George W. Bushs ausgesprochen. "Tatsache ist, dass wir im Irak in großen Schwierigkeiten sind", sagte Senator Chuck Nagel aus Nebraska in der CBS-Nachrichtensendung "Face the Nation". "Ich denke wir müssen über eine Neuausrichtung der Politik nachdenken", so der Republikaner weiter.

Deutlichere Worte gebrauchte Senator John McCain aus Arizona in der Sendung "Fox News Sunday": "Wir haben schwere Fehler gemacht", sagte McCain und plädierte für den erneuten Einsatz von Bodentruppen im Irak, um die von den islamistischen Rebellen eroberten Gebiete zurückzuerobern.

Der demokratische Senator Joe Biden hatte der Bush-Regierung in der vergangenen Woche vorgeworfen, angesichts der nahenden Präsidentschaftswahlen vor einer Boden-Offensive zurückzuschrecken. Biden sagte im US-Fernsehen, die Enttäuschung über Bushs Irak-Strategie ziehe sich inzwischen durch beide politische Lager: "Dick Lugar (Republikanischer Senator aus Indiana, d. Red.), Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, John McCain - wir sind uns alle einig: Bis jetzt gab es nur Inkompetenz."

McCain und andere führende Politiker aus beiden US-Parteien halten die Entsendung weiterer Truppen jedoch für unerlässlich, um die für Januar geplanten freien Wahlen im Irak zu ermöglichen. "Wir müssen die Zufluchtsstätten der Rebellen erobern, auch wenn das tragischerweise heißt, noch mehr Soldaten zu verlieren", sagte McCain. "Luftschläge taugen nicht, Artillerie-Feuer taugt nicht: Wir brauchen Stiefel auf der Erde." Je länger man warte, so McCain, desto größer werde das Problem und desto mehr Opfer werde man zu beklagen haben.

Senator John Kyl, ebenfalls aus Arizona, ist derselben Meinung: "Den Irakern zu erlauben, sich aus den Rückzugsgebieten der Rebellen herauszuhalten, scheint keine so gute Idee gewesen zu sein. Diese Entscheidung werden wir nun mit dem Einsatz unserer Marines und Armee-Divisionen korrigieren müssen."

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Images from the Web site of the militant Army of Ansar al-Sunna show three men, said to be Kurdish party members, before their beheading.
[/TABLE]

September 20, 2004
VIOLENCE
Militants Show the Beheading of 3 Kurdish Hostages
By EDWARD WONG

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 19 - A militant group on Sunday posted a gruesome Internet video showing the beheading of three men said to be members of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, one of two major Kurdish political parties in Iraq.

A statement by the group, the Army of Ansar al-Sunna, that was posted along with the video said the bodies of the men had been left on a road to the northern city of Mosul. That seemed to indicate that they could be the headless bodies discovered by American soldiers on Wednesday near Balad, about 50 miles north of Baghdad.

[Table align=right]

[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Insurgents stood over Iraqi national guardsmen whom the insurgents said they would kill unless Iraq freed a top aide to Moktada al-Sadr.

[/TABLE]
The statement identified the men as truck drivers captured in an ambush near Taji, 15 miles north of Baghdad, as they were transporting vehicles to an American base.

The video shows in low-resolution black and white a close-up shot of each of the three men as they state their names in Kurdish. A man wearing shorts, his face off screen, then takes a large knife to each of their necks and vigorously slices off their heads as blood pours onto the ground. After each killing, he places the bloody head on the back of each body.

The Army of Ansar al-Sunna has proven to be ruthless with its captives in the past. In late August, it released a video showing the killings of 12 Nepalese truck drivers. The first driver was beheaded, and the rest were shot in the head.

The statement posted with the most recent beheadings accused Massoud Barzani, the head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, and Jalal Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the other major Kurdish party, of serving the interests of Jews and Christians.

"They sent some of the scum of disbelievers to fight God`s soldiers, and here are their defeated brigades," the militants wrote in the statement. They added that they were beheading the truck drivers to teach the Kurdish leaders "a lesson not to be forgotten."

The Army of Ansar al-Sunna is an offshoot of Ansar al-Islam, a militant group made up mostly of Kurds that adhered to a strict fundamentalist form of Islam and fought the militia of the two Kurdish parties from a mountain redoubt in northern Iraq.

As the Americans invaded Iraq in March 2003, American Special Forces soldiers and Kurdish militiamen overran villages near the Iranian border that were occupied by Ansar al-Islam, killing many members and scattering the rest. Some survivors are thought to have reconstituted themselves as Ansar al-Sunna to continue waging war against the American occupiers, the Kurdish parties and others. They announced their formation last year.

More than 135 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq, many of them drivers transporting goods for the occupation forces or the interim government. Kidnappings are generally done for money, and most of those abducted have been released. But in several cases, the hostages have been killed by militant groups, and their executions shown in excruciating detail on Arabic-language television or on Internet sites.

On Saturday, a group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant, released a video showing two American engineers and a Briton who had been abducted earlier in the week. The insurgents said the men would be killed within 48 hours if women held in two American prison camps were not freed.

The fate of two kidnapped Italian relief workers remains unknown. Two kidnapped French journalists were scheduled to be freed to report on the activities of the insurgents, according to statements released Saturday by the Islamic Army of Iraq. The French government has yet to confirm that the journalists will be released.

Several Turkish truck drivers were ambushed and killed Sunday morning on a highway north of the capital, Agence France-Presse reported, quoting Lt. Col. Ahmed Hassan of the Balad police. Colonel Hassan said four trucks with Turkish license plates were destroyed at 10 a.m. at the Balad bridge, along the main highway between Baghdad and Mosul. All those inside were killed, he said without giving a specific number.

On Sunday night, Al Jazeera, the Arabic-language satellite network, showed a video of masked insurgents holding 15 men said to be Iraqi national guardsmen. The group, which called itself the Muhammad bin Abdullah Brigades, said it would kill the men if the government did not release Hazem al-Aaraji, a top aide to the rebel Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. Associates of Mr. Aaraji say he was arrested Saturday night or early Sunday morning by the Iraqi authorities.

The Iraqi Health Ministry said Sunday that 2 people had been killed and 10 wounded by American airstrikes in the restive town of Falluja on Saturday night. The dead were a man and a woman, and four women and five children were among those wounded, health officials said.

A suicide car bomb exploded Sunday afternoon near a patrol of American and Iraqi security forces in the restive city of Samarra, killing one Iraqi and wounding three American soldiers and three Iraqis. The patrol had been approaching a four-door sedan when the explosives detonated, according to a statement from the First Infantry Division.

Because of rampant hostility there, Samarra had been a restricted zone for American soldiers for much of the summer. In recent weeks, the First Infantry Division has tried to send patrols back into its streets and is relying on city leaders to persuade insurgents not to attack. But violence continues to flare up in the area.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

September 20, 2004
In Defense of Civil Liberties

The debate over intelligence reform, as important as it is, has been obscuring a vital discussion about another recommendation by the bipartisan commission on the 9/11 attacks. The panel`s report noted that no one in the government has the job of safeguarding civil liberties as the government seeks expanded powers to combat terrorism. It proposed assigning that critical task to a special board.

President Bush has already staked out his position by creating, by executive decree, a caricature of the 9/11 commission`s proposed board. The Senate is considering a much better, bipartisan measure. The issue needs serious debate before the election.

It ought to have been a shock to hear the commission suggest that we need a new agency to do what the courts, Congress and the attorney general are supposed to do, in theory at least. But the Justice Department has been steadily abandoning its responsibility to protect civil liberties, which now hardly seems to be in Attorney General John Ashcroft`s job description at all. A polarized Congress, wary of being portrayed as soft on terrorism, is not an adequate defense for our constitutional rights.

This has become an even more pressing problem since Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans realized that they would have to tolerate tighter security in public places, and federal law enforcement agencies required some expanded powers to effectively root out and destroy terrorist plots. So, pragmatically, it`s hard to simply dismiss the idea of Congress creating a special agency to focus on civil liberties - especially given this administration`s record on the issue.

Mr. Bush has tried to sweep aside the Constitution by declaring selected American citizens to be unlawful combatants and jailing them indefinitely; Mr. Ashcroft`s Justice Department produced the appalling memo justifying the torture of prisoners. It was also responsible for, among other things, jailing a lawyer from Portland, Ore., on charges of international terrorism based on a misreading of his fingerprints and, apparently, on his religious beliefs. The administration set up a detention camp in Guantánamo Bay where minimal standards of justice have been suspended or eliminated altogether.

But we don`t want to trade a situation in which no one gives priority to safeguarding our civil liberties for one in which a Potemkin review board gives reflexive approval to government actions that unreasonably encroach on constitutional liberties. That is the danger with Mr. Bush`s approach. His board has no authority to speak of. It cannot initiate investigations but has to wait for a cabinet official to request a review of his or her own actions. Most glaring, its members are currently serving presidential appointees who often run the operations that the board is most likely to review - including, incredibly, the Central Intelligence Agency, which has no legal domestic law enforcement function but does have a strong interest in smoothing the way for its intelligence gathering. The board - which has already had its first meeting, behind closed doors - has no subpoena power, no mission to conduct regular reviews of laws and no mandate to hold public hearings or issue public reports.

A bipartisan bill submitted by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, by contrast, would create a panel of five people from outside the government, appointed by the president and subject to Senate approval. That`s a much better approach, but the partisan balance should be even, as is now required on some regulatory agencies. The McCain-Lieberman board would be empowered to start its own investigations, require federal officials to testify and provide documents, and issue subpoenas. It would review proposed legislation, regulations and policies, as well as their implementation; receive regular reports from government agencies; and report twice yearly to Congress and the president. The bill also requires public hearings and reports.

The panel would advise Congress on whether "to retain or enhance a particular governmental power," like provisions of the Patriot Act, judging whether those powers had actually improved national security and were adequately supervised. Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman were too timid here. The review should include the degree to which civil liberties are in fact being breached and whether such breaches are really essential to protect national security and public safety. The law also should include the 9/11 commission`s notion that the burden of proof is on the government.

Congress cannot order Mr. Bush to disband his new board. Nor can it responsibly shirk its own duties of oversight. But it can respond to Mr. Bush`s pre-emptive move by creating a board with independent members and real authority. We hope that the public pressure would then be great enough for Mr. Bush to reverse field yet again on the 9/11 report and let the members of his review board go back to their day jobs.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Motiv für Helikopter-Massaker in der Haifa-Straße bleibt rätselhaft
von Brian Dominick
The NewStandard / ZNet 14.09.2004
Dieser Artikel wurde unter Mitarbeit von Orly Halpern (Bagdad) verfaßt

Am frühen Sonntagmorgen tötete die US-Armee in der Haifa-Straße 13 Menschen, mindestens 60 wurden verletzt. Unter den Opfern sind viele Kinder. Die Haifa-Straße gehört zu einem Wohngebiet in Zentral-Bagdad. Zunächst hieß es von der Armee, es habe sich um eine Routineoperation gehandelt. Ein verlassenes US-Militärfahrzeug sollte gesprengt werden - zum Schutz der Umstehenden bzw. damit Widerstandskämpfer nicht die Waffen plündern -, später war von Selbstverteidigung der amerikanischen Truppe die Rede. Kampfhubschrauber hätten auf (Gewehr-)Feuer in der Nähe des Fahrzeugs reagiert. Was immer passiert ist bzw. mit welcher Zielsetzung - am Ende lagen 12 tote Irakis und ein toter palästinensischer Journalist zwischen Dutzenden verwundeten Anwohnern. Die Menschen waren aus den benachbarten Wohnblocks geströmt, als sich US-Infanterie - nach einem mehrstündigen Feuergefecht in der Haifa-Straße -, zurückgezogen hatte. Viele Augenzeugenaussagen (und sie decken sich mit TV-Aufnahmen) lassen darauf schließen, daß die Helikopter direkt in die Menge feuerten. Zumindest die meisten in dieser Menge waren klar unbewaffnet.

Die erste Erklärung der Amerikaner erfolgte kurz nach dem Angriff. “Es liegt nicht in unserer Absicht, Zivilisten zu töten oder zu verletzen”, so ein Sprecher der fremden Besatzungstruppen im Irak, US-Oberstleutnant Steve Boylan, am Sonntag gegenüber The NewStandard. “Wir haben nicht auf Zivilisten gefeuert. Wir feuerten auf das Fahrzeug selbst”. “Der Helikopter feuerte auf den Bradley, um ihn zu zerstören, nachdem dieser zuvor getroffen wurde und in Flammen stand”, so Major Phil Smith von der 1st Cavalry Division gegenüber The Independent. Und ohne sich der Ironie seiner Aussage bewußt zu sein, ergänzt er: “Es geschah im Interesse der Sicherheit der umstehenden Leute”.

Aufnahmen eines Teams des Senders Al Arabiya, das sich am Ort des Geschehens befand, zeigen ganz klar Explosionen in der Menge Nichtkombattanten - und das in ziemlicher Entfernung vom brennenden Bradley (Bradley, das ist ein Kampffahrzeug, ein gepanzerter, tankähnlicher Truppentransporter). (Auf einer Aufnahme) ist der Bradley sehr weit im Hintergrund zu erkennen, während der palästinensische TV-Mann Mazen Al-Tumeizi sich zu einem Live-Interview bereitmacht; eine von einem US-Helikopter abgeschossene Raketen schlägt so dicht neben ihm ein, daß Al-Tumeizi getötet und der Kameramann Seif Fouad verletzt wird.

Später, in einem Pressestatement, paßt das Militär seine Version an. Jetzt heißt es plötzlich: “Luftunterstützung wurde angefordert, und als die Helikopter über dem brennenden Bradley flogen, wurden sie von Aufständischen in der Nähe des Fahrzeugs mit leichten Waffen beschossen”. Diese offizielle Militärversion bezüglich des Vorfalls setzt allerdings voraus, daß es den Crews der amerikanischen Hubschrauber schon beim ersten Anflug möglich war, klar zwischen “Aufständischen” und Zivilisten zu unterscheiden: Während sie Letztere verschonten, deckten sie Erstere mit “Konterfeuer” ein. Das Militärstatement geht noch weiter: “Laut Aussagen von offizieller Seite wurde klar nach den Einsatzregeln verfahren. Die Helikopter erwiderten das Feuer und vernichteten einige antiirakische Kräfte nahe des Bradley, sie verhinderten zudem, daß sensible Ausrüstung und Waffen abhandenkamen”. Das Statement liest sich formal wie ein Zeitungsartikel. Damit will man Reporter animieren, den Text direkt zu übernehmen. Beim zweiten Anflug, so das Statement, hätten sich die Helikopter-Crews entschieden, nichts zu unternehmen, da es nicht mehr möglich gewesen sei, zwischen Kämpfern und Nichtkämpfern zu unterscheiden. Diese Version weicht drastisch von sämtlichen irakischen Aussagen ab, die gegenüber The NewStandard und auch anderen Reportern gemacht wurden. Sie steht zudem nicht in Einklang mit TV-Aufnahmen, die vor Ort entstanden. Auf dem Al-Arabiya-Video beispielsweise ist nirgends zu sehen, daß vom Boden aus geschossen wird, auch kein Feuer aus der Luft ist zu erkennen, das den Explosionen voranging - Explosionen, die Nichtkombattanten, die weit vom ausgeschlachteten Bradley entfernt standen, töteten bzw. verletzten.

Fotojournalist und Kolumnist Gaith Abdul-Ahad, der vor Ort verletzt wurde, schreibt im britischen Guardian, daß es ihn erst beim dritten explosiven Angriff erwischte. Dieser sei erst mehrere Minuten nach den ersten Explosionen, die in die Menschenmenge schlugen, erfolgt. Abdul-Ahad kann sich an keine Schüsse am Boden erinnern. Er beschreibt eine grauenhafte Szenerie - sterbende Zivilisten, die nach Hilfe schreien und die Evakuierung der Verletzten; unter ihnen ein kleiner Junge, dem eine US-Rakete das Bein teilweise abgetrennt hatte. Abdul-Ahad blieb nach seiner Verwundung noch lange am Ort des Geschehens - um Opfern zu helfen und Bilder zu machen. Er sagt, es habe mehr als fünf Minuten gedauert, bis die Helikopter erneut feuerten.

Demgegenüber wird im Militärstatement darauf bestanden, die Hubschrauber hätten nur einmal gefeuert und zwar “auf Aufständische in der Nähe des Fahrzeugs”. Danach sei der Angriff abgebrochen worden. “Beim letzten Anflug der Helikopter”, so das offizielle Statement, “brannte das Bradley-Kampffahrzeug, und eine Menschenmenge versammelte sich um das Fahrzeug. Die Flugzeugcrews konnten, so Offizielle, nicht mehr zwischen bewaffneten Aufständischen und Zivilisten am Boden unterscheiden, weshalb nicht mehr angegriffen wurde”. Demgegenüber belegen alle Zeugenaussagen am Boden, daß die Menge sich schon mindestens mehrere Minuten vorher versammelt hatte - bevor die Helikopter anflogen; Kinder und unbewaffnete Zivilisten hatten den Abzug der amerikanischen Soldaten gefeiert bzw. den Treffer auf den Bradley - dessen Besatzung entkommen konnte - sie tanzten auf und um das Fahrzeug; als die Hubschrauber anfingen, von oben anzugreifen, löste sich die Menge fast ganz auf.

Die Szene, die der Explosion, die TV-Reporter Al-Tameizi tödlich verwundete, unmittelbar voranging, zeigt ihn vor der Kamera stehend. Daß die Hubschrauber sich bereitmachen, die Menge, in deren Mitte er steht, anzugreifen, scheint ihm zu diesem Zeitpunkt in keinster Weise bewußt. Das läßt darauf schließen, daß es keinerlei Vorwarnung gab und daß die versammelten Zivilisten schon bei der ersten Attacke angegriffen wurden. Auch von Anwohnern wird die offizielle US-Erklärung in Zweifel gezogen. Ihren Angaben zufolge wurden sie an jenem Morgen sowohl mit Raketen als auch Maschinengewehren angegriffen. Amerikanische Militäroffizielle behaupten, der Bradley hätte zerstört werden müssen, um nicht in falsche Hände zu geraten. “Wir konnten das Fahrzeug nicht wegschaffen, also wurde beschlossen, es zu zerstören”, erklärt Oberstleutnant Boylan, “damit es nicht gegen (US) Kräfte und irakische Kräfte eingesetzt werden kann”. Andererseits kommt es selten bzw. gar nicht vor, daß US-Truppen einen Luftangriff anordnen, um in Bagdad die Überreste eines kaputten Fahrzeugs zu zerstören. Das nahegelegene Sadr City - wo Kämpfe zwischen Amerikanern und schiitischen Widerstandskämpfern inzwischen ein nächtliches Ritual sind -, ist regelmäßig zugemüllt mit den Überresten verlassener Panzerfahrzeuge und Humvees, darauf verweisen Iraker, und dieses Zeug wird später nicht durch amerikanische Luftschläge zerstört.

Einige Bewohner der Haifa-Straße sprechen offen aus, was sie denken: “Die Amerikaner” hätten es am Sonntag in irgendeiner Form auf Vergeltung abgesehen gehabt. “Man hat sich an Zivilisten gerächt, weil der (Widerstand) einen US-Panzer getroffen hat”, sagt ein Mann aus der Haifa-Straße. Er will nur Abu Mohammed genannt werden. Im Unterschied zu anderen Vorfällen, bei denen die Version des US-Militärs und die sämtlicher Augenzeugen sich auch stark voneinander unterschieden, waren am Sonntag mehrere Reporter zu direkten Augenzeugen des Geschehens geworden, und die Ereignisse sind teilweise auf Video aufgezeichnet. Das Militär erklärt, es untersuche den Vorfall.

Brian Dominick ist Nahost-Redakteur des NewStandard, einer progressiven Website, die harte Fakten liefert: www.newstandardnews.net Orly Halpern ist freier Journalist mit Sitz in Nahost.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Iraq is not lost, but US strategy is
By Anthony Cordesman

Financial Times

Published: September 19 2004

Virtually without fanfare, the Bush administration has reprogrammed about $3.5bn in aid funds to Iraq in ways that mark a fundamental shift in strategy - and a recognition that much of the US effort in the first year of occupation was a failure.
The administration sent a proposal to Congress last week to reprogramme $3.46bn of spending on Iraqi water, power and other reconstruction projects. Some $1.8bn of that will go toward accelerating the training and equipping of Iraqi police and security forces. In an equally crisis-driven fashion, the rest will be spent on securing and boosting oil exports, creating jobs and providing immediate aid benefits of the kind that could support the elections scheduled for January. Only about $1.2bn of the $18.4bn of US aid funds programmed for the 2004 fiscal year has been spent, and less than $600m has been spent in Iraq. Much of that has been wasted because of sabotage, attacks and bad planning; or has been spent outside the country; or has gone to foreign security forces.

The reprog ramming request does far more than shift money. It is a recognition that Paul Bremer, the former US administrator in Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the US military got the first year of the Iraq occupation fundamentally wrong. It is also a de facto recognition that the neo-conservative goals set for restructuring Iraq can never be achieved.

The new effort to rush money into Iraqi military and security forces recognises that the US failed to make a serious effort to train these forces properly in the year following Saddam Hussein`s fall. It is an acknowledgment that the US administration, the CPA and the military were wrong in assuming the insurgency would be defeated by the time the new Iraqi forces emerged. As a result, the US made relatively limited efforts to create a large pool of manpower, relying on inadequate training and equipment. The goal was slow improvements in border defence, a token regular force and security forces that would not threaten the democracy the US expecte d to emerge in late 2004.

The current reprogramming is intended to fund a totally different security effort that began gathering momentum in April, when there was a surge of attacks and the US realised it could not defeat the insurgents without strong Iraqi forces. As a result, the Bush administration is rushing in funds for what amounts to the "Vietnamisation" of military operations in Iraq. US tactics have shifted largely to holding actions and surgical strikes, while Iraqi forces are being trained to take over most missions from the US and British forces, and eventually replace them.

Similarly, much of the remaining funds are going to urgent short-term aid projects aimed at winning Iraqi support. This reprogramming is a recognition that efforts by the US and CPA to plan the long-term structure of Iraq`s economic development have foundered in the face of Iraqi opposition to outside aid efforts, attacks, theft and an inability to structure effective contract operations. The latest priorities ar e only beginning the task of letting Iraqis manage their own economic future. Much is in limbo and no one can say how the funds that are not being redirected can and should be spent. It is clear that outside contract efforts are under constant threat, and that a large part of the money goes to US and non-Iraqi firms and never reaches Iraq. It is equally clear that many, if not most, projects lack the planning to be cost-effective or have lasting impact. The end result is a confused mess with only partial reform of the aid programme leaving longer term uncertainty.

More generally, the new US approach defers most key actions and military risks until after the US elections, while it raises compelling issues about the timing of its longer-term goals. It avoids any decisive US military action unless essential. Everything will consist of limited operations and strikes until the new Iraqi forces are "ready". The problem is, no one can agree on when they will be ready and what exactly they should be ready for. The US hopes Iraqi forces can eventually take back hostile cities and areas. The White House and National Security Council officials have implied they will be ready to do this by the planned January election in Iraq. Iyad Allawi, Iraq`s prime minister, also believes the election will stay on schedule but acknowledges it may have to proceed without the participation of substantial areas deemed too violent. Some US officials and officers in Iraq are privately considerably more cautious than the White House. They feel the Iraqi forces will not be strong enough to take over US and British operations in early 2005, and that the election will have to be delayed by some months.

The White House is still "spinning" the Iraq story. For now, the Iraqi elections remain uncertain but loom as a key target for insurgents; and the US still lacks a meaningful strategy for the overall reprogramming of existing aid funds and for dealing with longer term Iraqi requirements in the order of some $50-$100bn.

None of this implies that the US has "lost" Iraq, or that the revised US strategy cannot work. It seems clear, however, that the reprogramming effort acknowledges that everything now depends on the ability of the Iraqi government to establish true legitimacy, and on Iraqi forces to take over much, if not most, of the fighting. The good news is the beginning of a quiet shift to pragmatism. The bad news is that this shift in strategy may be coming too late and in too uncertain a fashion.

The writer is chair in strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Es beginnt der Wettbewerb, wer tötet die meisten Irakis.

US determined to cut out `cancer of Fallujah`
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad and Andrew Buncombe in Washington

20 September 2004

American military commanders in Iraq are planning a series of major assaults before the end of the year to retake control of Fallujah and other cities held by insurgents.

While commanders say they have not fixed a precise date for the new operation, much will depend on the readiness of Iraqi police and military police units which would occupy the cities once they have been taken.

"We need to make a decision on when the cancer of Fallujah is going to be cut out," an unidentified senior US commander told The New York Times. "We would like to end December at local control across the country."

News of the planned assaults came as a video posted on a website used by extremists showed the apparent beheading of three members of an Iraqi Kurdish party - killed for co-operating with US forces.

A statement accompanying the video was signed by the Ansar al-Sunna Army, a group that in August released footage showing 12 Nepalese hostages being killed.

Reports said the video shows three young men holding up their identity cards before each has his throat cut. A man is then seen cutting off each hostage`s head and the heads are then seen placed on the backs of the victims.

Hostage-taking has been one of the few growth industries in Iraq since Saddam was ousted. Foreigners being abducted attracts most international attention but most of the victims are Iraqi. In Baghdad, businessmen and professionals are the most common victims and many have fled to Jordan and Syria.

US commanders recognise that retaking Fallujah - which they are now bombing on a daily basis - will not be an easy task. What they have not commented on is the likely number of Iraqi civilian casualties in such an operation.

US warplanes and artillery units fired on Fallujah in two operations over the weekend, killing four and wounding six, hospital officials said.

Late on Saturday, warplanes unleashed missiles on a main street in the city centre, killing two people and wounding four, Dr Rafea Heyad said.

The US military said the strikes hit a checkpoint manned by insurgents linked to the alleged terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The illegal checkpoint used blockades to disrupt security, intimidate and harass local citizens and interrogate and detain local civilians," the military said in a statement.

Early yesterday an artillery barrage on an industrial area in the city left two more dead and two others wounded, said Dr Ahmed Khalil of the Fallujah General Hospital. Tanks opened fire on suspected militants who were using a crane, a tractor trailer and other heavy equipment to build fortified positions in an area previously used to mount attacks on US Marines deployed on the city`s outskirts. The US military had no immediate comment about the operation,

In April, when US forces attacked Fallujah in what was essentially an act of revenge for the killing and mutilation of four American security contractors, hundreds of Iraqis were killed and more than a thousand were injured. While more than 1,000 US troops have been killed in Iraq, some estimates suggest that up to 37,000 Iraqis have lost their lives.

The US military claims that in the spring it was just two days from retaking the centre of Fallujah when the operation was halted by Washington. Commanders believe that with the backing of the new interim Iraqi government, the autumn operation will be successful.


20 September 2004 12:19


©2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

A hierarchy of suffering

Since 9/11, America has used its victimhood to demand a monopoly on the right to feel and to inflict pain
Gary Younge
Monday September 20, 2004

The Guardian
The tale of how I became a Nazi and my Nazi harasser became a Jew is as intriguing as it is instructive. Last November I wrote a column about a racist email sent to me by an employee of an insurance company and my frustrations over the manner in which my grievance was handled. The man in question (a white, South African supporter of the British National party who complained of "undesirables flooding into Britain") was subsequently fired. His dismissal was not as a result of my column but because my original complaint had alerted the company to a previously unreported pattern of racist behaviour on his part.

Of the numerous responses from the public I received, most were supportive but many were more abusive than the original message. One stood out. Incensed that something as "trivial" as racist abuse could lead to a man losing his job, one reader compared me to the person who betrayed Anne Frank. And so, through contorted metaphor and contemptuous logic, the harasser became the victim and the harassed was transformed into the perpetrator.

Victimhood is a powerful, yet contradictory, force. Powerful because, once claimed, it can provide the moral basis for redress, retaliation and even revenge in order to right any given wrong - real or imagined. The defence of everything from the death penalty to affirmative action, Serbian nationalism to equality legislation, are all underpinned, to some degree, by the notion of victimhood. Contradictory because, in order to harness that power, one must first admit weakness. Victims, by their very nature, have less power than their persecutors: victimhood is a passive state - the result of bad things happening to people who are unable to prevent it.

In the past, the right has exploited this tension to render victimhood a dirty word - a label synonymous with whingers, whiners, failures and fantasists. Revealing no empathy with the powerless nor any grasp of historical context, they wilfully ignore the potential for victimhood to morph into resistance, preferring instead to lampoon it as a loser`s charter.

"The left had become little more than a meeting place for balkanised groups of discontents, all bent on extracting their quota of public shame and their slice of the entitlement pie," wrote columnist Norah Vincent three years ago. "All of them blaming their personal failures on their race, their sex, their sexual orientation, their disability, their socioeconomic status and a million other things."

Such arguments were always flawed. But increasingly they are beginning to look downright farcical. For if you are looking for someone making political hay out of victimhood nowadays, look no further than the right. The ones most ready, willing and able to turn the manipulation of pain into an art form have found their home among the world`s most powerful.

Read the Daily Mail and you would believe that Britain is under threat from the most impoverished and vulnerable people in the land. Asylum seekers, immigrants, "welfare cheats" and single mothers are bringing the nation to its knees. While the country is going to the dogs, the Christians are, apparently, heading for the lions. "We, as a people, and the government, must make strenuous efforts to promote and defend our culture, and especially the place of Christianity in it and the rights to self-expression by Christians," wrote Simon Heffer earlier this year.

Across the Atlantic, the right`s new role as victims is even more prevalent and pronounced. Straight relationships are threatened by the prospect of gay marriage, white workers are threatened by affirmative action, American workers are threatened by third world labourers, America is threatened by everybody.

At times, this means the powerful appropriating the icons, tropes and rhetoric of the powerless in their entirety, to hilarious - if disturbing - effect. Last year Roy Moore, the former Republican chief justice of Alabama, led a failed bid to keep a monument of the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. Standing before a group of supporters, some of whom were waving Confederate flags, emblem of the slave-holding South, he said: "If the `rule of law` means to do everything a judge tells you to do, we would still have slavery in this country." Wearing T-shirts proclaiming "Islam is a lie, homosexuality is a sin, abortion is murder", they then sang We Shall Overcome.

In these cases, victimhood serves merely as a pretext for a backlash to reassert, extend or expand the dominance of the powerful. If these people are victims of anything, it is of the threat to their entitlement and privilege.

In others, however, genuine suffering acts as a precursor to genuine vindictiveness. The threat of suicide bombings in Israel serves as the rationale for building the wall to protect Israelis from terrorist attack. In the current intifada, the Israelis have lost more citizens than during the six-day war - no one should belittle their pain. Palestinians, on the other hand, have lost about three times as many people due to Israeli military aggression. Who, one wonders, needs protecting from whom - or is some people`s pain more valuable than others`?

But nowhere is the abuse of victimhood more blatant than in the US presidential election, where September 11 remains the central plank of the Republicans` strategy for re-election. The fact that their campaign begins with the terror attacks is not only understandable but also, arguably, right - this is the most significant thing to happen in the US since Bush assumed office.

The trouble is that the campaign`s message ends with that day also. September 11 has served not as a starting point from which to better understand the world but as an excuse not to understand it at all. It is a reference point that brooks no argument and needs no logic. No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? "The next time, the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud?" No United Nations authority? "We will never again wait for permission to defend our country." No link between Saddam and al-Qaida? "They only have to be right once. We have to be right every time."

This is the real link between Iraq and 9/11 - the rhetorical dissembling that renders victimhood not a point from which they might identify with and connect to the rest of humanity but a means to turn their back on humanity. They portray America`s pain as a result of 9/11 not only as unique in its expression but also superior in its intensity.

When 3,000 people died on September 11, Le Monde declared: "We are all Americans now." Around 12,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the beginning of the war, yet one waits in vain for anyone to declare that we have all become Iraqis, or Afghans, let alone Palestinians. This is not a competition. Sadly, there are enough victims to go around. Sadder still, if the US continues on its present path, there will be many more. Demanding a monopoly on the right to feel and to inflict pain simply inverts victimhood`s regular contradiction - the Bush administration displays material strength and moral weakness.

[e-mail]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Democracy: our cause, Iraq`s sacrifice

Civilian casualties accentuate the bankruptcy of western promises
Peter Preston
Monday September 20, 2004

The Guardian
The coincidence of timing is both hapless and brutal. One moment, a few Old Etonian oiks set the mother of parliaments soiling her knickers, and much hysterical quavering about democracy under threat follows (Oh calamity! Suppose they`d been terrorists rather than Telegraph-reading toffs). And the next, here comes Ayad Allawi, prime minister of an Iraq that must somehow turn democratic by next January - but, for the interim, keeps seeing its people killed in their hundreds each week.

Can our leaders and jittery backbenchers offer Allawi the homeland security he desperately needs? No: that`s beyond the Tony Blair he met yesterday or the (allegedly) most powerful man in the world he will fly on to meet.

Sure enough, Messrs Blair and Bush can mouth the rolling phrases of welcome. "You are the very crucible of the fight against terrorism," according to Blair. Britain can send a few more troops to guard polling stations, if required, as well as pull them out on the quiet. America can swap rebuilding cash for security cash. But there is nothing they can do except make vague promises, grin and yack.

They can`t stop the car bombs or the carnage among Allawi`s fledgling police. They can`t stop their own troops being killed as their own elections near. They can`t stop the hostage-takers who so sicken western public opinion, and who then play on that revulsion with masterly malevolence. They can`t keep the oil pipelines safe (or world prices under control).

They can, in fact, only mouth pieties as they clasp their chosen man`s hand for the cameras and pretend that one fine day (just after America votes, since you ask) it will all come right. Bring our boys home. Revolutionise the Middle East. Lay al-Qaida waste. Heaven bless the miracle of the ballot box. But meanwhile, hear the chirrups from Peter Hain and friends: can we please have the Met and M15 to keep our shivering talking shop safe?

It is all, calmly considered, beyond pathetic. It exhorts bravery and sacrifice from those who have seen tens of thousands of their fellow citizens die in the past 12 months. It pretends that an election or two will bring magical peace and freedom. Yet there is no sign of that at a querulous Westminster, nor in the US, where the president travels with a security detail big enough to swamp Baghdad on a bad day.

Freedom, it seems, is to be won by the blood of others. Freedom is our single transferable gift to them, our shield against darkness. But meanwhile, Guantánamo Bay, and umpteen steely sonatas from John Ashcroft and David Blunkett, is our gift to ourselves.

Freedom, though, is also the freedom to ask awkward questions, to inquire of our masters: please, what happens next? And here the rhetoric fades to a mumble.

Allawi, good foot soldier that he is, declares that the insurgents are losing steam, that he`s winning his own war for survival. Kofi Annan, good honest diplomat that he is, says that feels like wishful thinking and January elections look an impossible dream. Yet Blair and George Bush, twin towers of tautology, say nothing useful.

Our PM still talks of Iraq as a "stable democratic country" in waiting, but not of how it gets from A to B. The president of the United States, with 140,000 troops on the ground who want to come home, talks about something else. His official campaign website (the one that swing voters can turn to) solves the problem by barely mentioning it.

"Fifty million people have been liberated from despotic, totalitarian regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq," it says. "The brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is gone, and an interim regime is leading the Iraqi people to freedom." And that`s it, period. Re-elect Bush and Cheney and what do you get? A blank page.

Try Kerry and Edwards on the big issue, then? Forget that, too. Let`s "plan Iraq`s future by working with our allies", they say. Let`s "launch a massive and accelerated training effort to build Iraqi security". Let`s get our boys home by 2008, employing a plan too secret to describe in even vestigial detail.

But there`s a terrible mis-match here. We ask the Iraqis to suffer and endure in a cause we hold dear, yet we tell neither them nor our own voters the truth. We hail democracy as some wonder ingredient, yet close the packet closer to home.

Ayad Allawi is a brave man; he wouldn`t be where he is if he wasn`t. Iraq, after Saddam, is full of brave men and women. But that same Iraq - its social infrastructure dismantled or destroyed - is desperately vulnerable. Why do the bombs keepgoing off? Because enough of society shields the bombers? How can so few dissidents cause such mayhem? Because there are actually rather a lot of them, because they are strong and Allawi is weak, already discredited in too many eyes by the way that, perforce, he must lean on America? Those pictures with Bush this week will say two different things: to Americans, that an Iraqi leader is handling this crisis - and, to Iraqis, that Allawi is a Bush puppet.

It`s a hopeless two-way stretch. It pretends the nightmare of Iraq is almost over, when it may just be beginning. It does not tell America`s voters that this is the longest and bloodiest of hauls, with no release date and no exit strategy.

Democracy? Northern Ireland doesn`t want it, again: too many sacrifices from too many politicians. (Wait till Moqtada al-Sadr sings that tune.) Westminster shuts its doors and rolls concrete blocks into place. Blair moves on, lest memos from the past pursue him. But let us, at least, be honest to our good, free selves. Here is a problem without a solution. And, inescapably in a democracy, it is our problem.

[e-mail]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Bush, Kerry Tentatively Settle on 3 Debates

By Mike Allen and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 20, 2004; Page A01

The campaigns of President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry have tentatively settled on a package of three face-to-face debates that both sides view as a potentially decisive chance to sway huge audiences ahead of the Nov. 2 election, Democrats and Republicans said yesterday.

Bush`s campaign opened the negotiations by urging just two sessions involving Bush and Kerry, but yielded to the full slate of debates that had been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, according to people in both parties who were briefed on the negotiations.

No agreement will be final until the two sides agree on details for the format of a town-meeting-style debate that Bush at first resisted but now is willing to endorse, the party representatives said.

The debates will be spread over two weeks just before the hectic homestretch of a bitter contest, which had been tied for months until Bush recently opened a small lead in a number of national polls. The nominees will focus on foreign policy during the opening session, on Sept. 30 in Florida; they will take questions from undecided voters at the town-meeting-style debate Oct. 8 in Missouri; and they will conclude with a session on Oct. 13 in Arizona that will revolve around domestic issues.

Vice President Cheney and Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards will debate Oct. 5 in Ohio. Each of the four debates will begin at 9 p.m. Eastern time and will run 90 minutes.

The officials, who declined to be identified because they were not supposed to be discussing the matter with reporters, would not say when an agreement will be announced.

Both campaigns declined to comment on the state of negotiations. Bush-Cheney communications director Nicolle Devenish said: "The campaign maintains its position that it will not negotiate the terms of the debates in the press."

Kerry`s campaign sees the debates as especially important, coming after a period in which he has been put on the defensive by the Bush campaign and its conservative allies. Polls paint a confusing picture of the state of the race, with some showing a virtual dead heat and others giving Bush a clear advantage. In many of the key battleground states, Bush appears in stronger shape than his challenger.

Bush`s chief negotiator, former secretary of state James A. Baker III, agreed to add the third debate in part because of Missouri`s importance as a swing state and because the president did not want to be portrayed as ducking his opponent, according to a source.

Under the commission`s proposal, the participants for the town meeting will be undecided voters from the St. Louis metropolitan area who are chosen by the Gallup Organization.

"The Bush campaign didn`t want to do the town hall because they really didn`t trust the process for identifying uncommitted voters," said a Republican source familiar with the talks. "But things are going so well for them and so poorly for Kerry that they didn`t want to give Kerry an opportunity to change the subject and say that Bush is afraid of debates. Bush not doing debates or dragging out the debate on debates could have been played by the Kerry campaign as arrogance."

A Democratic official involved in the process said the Kerry campaign worked to bring pressure on the Bush campaign through the news media, Republican donors and public officials in Missouri to go through with the town-hall debate. Bush won the state by three percentage points in 2000, and both sides expected it to be among the most closely contested swing states, although a number of polls show Bush ahead there now.

After reaching agreement on the broad outlines of the schedule, Baker and Kerry`s lead negotiator, Democratic power broker Vernon E. Jordan Jr., were negotiating details of the town meeting. Officials indirectly involved said they believed that was the only element standing in the way of a final agreement.

The town-meeting debate is to be held at Washington University in St. Louis, which hosted debates in 1992 and 2000 and had been selected as a commission site in 1996, but lost out when President Bill Clinton agreed to only two debates. University officials had already completed expensive preparations for security, broadcast transmission and parking.

The two sides decided to reverse the commission`s recommendation that the debates focus first on domestic policy and later on foreign policy, which the president`s campaign sees as his strength. Jordan agreed, both sides said.

The nonpartisan commission has sponsored debates in each election since 1988, but candidates are not obligated to accept the commission`s proposal. As negotiations continued, the commission issued an unusual letter Wednesday saying the campaigns must settle on a schedule by today for production and logistical deadlines to be met. In a nudge to the Bush campaign, the letter included a reference to the popularity of the town-hall format with the public.

Both sides have already begun portraying the opposing candidate as a tremendous debater, as part of the quadrennial ritual of trying to lower expectations for the nominees` performances. Kerry strategist Joe Lockhart told reporters during a conference call Friday that he would "challenge anyone to name a major debate that George Bush has been in where he hasn`t been considered the winner."

Matthew Dowd, the Bush-Cheney campaign`s chief strategist, said in an interview earlier this month that Kerry "is very formidable, and probably the best debater ever to run for president." "I`m not joking," Dowd added. "I think he`s better than Cicero," the ancient Roman orator. "But I think it`ll be a very good thing for the American public to see these two men stand side by side. You can`t hide who you are."

Both campaigns agreed to the dates, locations and moderators proposed by the commission. Commission officials plan to begin moving equipment and other materials into place at the debate sites today, on the assumption that their plan will be embraced by the campaigns.

The Sept. 30 debate will be held at the University of Miami in Coral Gables and will be moderated by Jim Lehrer, anchor and executive editor of "The NewsHour" on PBS. The Oct. 8 town-hall debate will be moderated by Charles Gibson, co-anchor of ABC`s "Good Morning America." The Oct 13 debate will be at Arizona State University in Tempe. The questioner will be Bob Schieffer, CBS News chief Washington correspondent and moderator of "Face the Nation."

The Oct. 5 vice presidential debate will be held at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and will be moderated by Gwen Ifill, senior correspondent of "The NewsHour" and moderator of PBS`s "Washington Week."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Kerrys europäische Wurzeln. Sie stammen aus Mödling bei Wien.

THE WORLD
Proud European Towns Stake Out Kerry`s Roots
Tourism hopes and anti-Bush sentiment lead Austria, Poland, Hungary and others to claim the candidate as one of their own.
By Sonya Yee
Times Staff Writer

September 20, 2004

MOEDLING, Austria — The house is no more. The street name has changed. But an entry in a local church`s baptismal register, recorded in a spidery hand, confirms that on Sept. 26, 1901, a man named Fritz Kohn changed the family name to Kerry.

Evidence of John F. Kerry`s family presence in this small town outside Vienna may be thin on the ground. But that hasn`t stopped Moedling from celebrating the connection to the U.S. Democratic presidential nominee.

And Moedling, until now best known for being home to Europe`s biggest shopping mall, is not alone. With British lineage and French cousins on his mother`s side, a wife with Portuguese ancestry, and a paternal family tree that branches through a swath of the former Austro-Hungarian empire, Kerry and his pedigree have made headlines in much of Europe.

France, which can boast first cousins who have actually met Kerry, perhaps trumps the field, but Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland have lost no time in laying claim to the candidate.

Austria, still reveling in native son Arnold Schwarzenegger`s ascent to governor of California, is happy to claim the man who could be the next president of the United States as one of its own.

"The basis of the Austrian interest, not only in Kerry but Schwarzenegger, is the inferiority complex of a small country that was once very big," said Georg Hoffmann-Ostenhof, a commentator with the Austrian news weekly Profil.

Until World War I, Austria was the center of a multiethnic empire; it is now a small Alpine nation with a population of 8 million.

Austrian media have hailed the presidential candidate "with old Austrian roots." The state-run television station and the local press have interviewed distant Kerry relations, including a Vienna politician, Manfred Kerry, whose great-grandfather was the brother of Kerry`s grandfather.

Moedling touts its crucial role in the history of the Kerrys.

Kohn, Kerry`s paternal grandfather, was a German-speaking Jew from Austrian Silesia, now a part of the Czech Republic. In 1880, at age 7, he moved with his widowed mother and two siblings to Moedling, where his uncle ran a shoe factory. In 1900, he married Ida Loewe, a Jew from Budapest.

Anti-Semitism was a fact of life in turn-of-the-century Austria, and many assimilated Jews changed their names and converted to Roman Catholicism in an effort to escape prejudice.

In 1901, Kohn changed the family name to Kerry — according to legend, the Kohns took their new name from the Irish county of Kerry by randomly pointing at a map. The similarly spelled Kery, however, is not an uncommon last name in Central Europe.

Just two weeks later, Fritz Kerry was baptized at St. Othmar, a Late Gothic church perched on a hill above the old town square.

A few years later, the Kerrys emigrated to the U.S., where Fritz, short for Friedericus, became Frederick. Richard Kerry, father of the Democratic nominee, was born in 1915.

By the time John Kerry was born in 1943, Frederick had committed suicide and the family past, as well as its Jewish ancestry, had been consigned to history. Two world wars and the Holocaust — two of Kerry`s relatives on his grandmother`s side died in Nazi camps — left few traces of the family on this side of the Atlantic.

Now, Moedling has a page devoted to the Kerry connection on its website, and St. Othmar has a Web page too.

"All of Moedling is proud of the connection," said Gerhard Kunze, who has written a history of the town.

Meanwhile, the Czech town of Horni Benesov, formerly called Bennisch, has found fame as Fritz Kohn`s birthplace. According to a report by Radio Free Europe, the local amateur soccer team has been renamed the John Kerry team, and there has been talk of honorary citizenship for Kerry.

In interviews with local and foreign media, officials of the down-at-the-heels town of around 2,500 have expressed hope that a Kerry win could result in a tourism boost, or at the very least a little more attention from the Czech government.

For their part, Hungarian media have devoted their attention to Ida Loewe, Kerry`s Budapest-born grandmother, although her family originally came from Moravia, now a part of the Czech Republic. Not to be outdone, a regional Polish newspaper uncovered still more Kerry ancestors. Mathilde Fraenkel, Kerry`s great-grandmother, was born in 1845 in the town of Glogowek, which has also set up a website, in Polish, English and German, outlining the family connection.

"We even sent a letter to Kerry," said Jan Mencler, the town`s mayor. "We congratulated him on his nomination and wrote about our discovery that his relatives come from this part of the world. It was in April. He hasn`t replied, but we are still hoping he will."

A Kerry victory in November would probably unleash a new wave of Kerry fever.

Hans Stefan Hintner, the mayor of Moedling, said that if Kerry won, the town would probably honor the new U.S. president with plaques commemorating the local connection.

Few Kerry-related landmarks are still standing — Fritz Kohn`s house, at Feldgasse 67, was torn down long ago, and the street has since been renamed Friedrich-Schiller-Strasse. But, Hintner pointed out, Moedling is still where the Kerrys became Kerrys.

"It is a tourism opportunity, and naturally that would be great for us," he said.

In addition to becoming an honorary citizen of Horni Benesov, Kerry could receive a similar tribute from Glogowek if he became president, Mayor Mencler said.

"Maybe the City Council would name a street or a square after him," he said.

Pride in a "local" boy making good and hopes for a Kerry-related tourism boom aren`t the only reasons behind European desires for a Kerry win. Many on the Continent are deeply opposed to U.S. actions in Iraq and to what is perceived as the Bush administration`s contempt for international alliances.

In a recent editorial, the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine wrote that "in Europe, a great majority is crossing its fingers that … Kerry might succeed in November in chasing the from-all-sides unloved, if not hated, president out of the White House."

Kerry appears to have strong supporters even in Poland, part of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld`s "New Europe," which backed the U.S. moves in Iraq.

"We are really rooting for Kerry — there is no reason to root for Bush," Mencler said. "He started a war in Iraq and got Poles involved in it. Now we can`t get out because it just wouldn`t look good."

The basis for some Europeans` support for Kerry may be familiar to many Americans: He is not Bush.

"He has the most sympathy you can imagine simply for not being Bush," Hoffmann-Ostenhof, the Austrian commentator, said, adding that the discovery of Kerry`s Pan-European origins is simply "the cream on top."

Special correspondent Ela Kasprzycka in Warsaw contributed to this report.


Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Commander-In-Chief`s Bait-And-Switch

- Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
Monday, September 20, 2004

The thing that rankles me most about George W. Bush these days is the way he lies to our troops.

When you`re in that American-made cesspool called Iraq, and you`ve been told your tour of duty ends on April 12, it`s an out-and-out breach of contract to be suddenly told you can`t go home until September.

I use the April 12 date because that`s the day the family on television said they expected their reservist son home.

His remains were shipped home in a box after he was killed on April 29.

That`s bad enough, but then Bush has the temerity to accuse critics of his war of damaging troop morale.

That must be his macabre idea of a joke. What could possibly be more damaging to morale than to be told you`re going home and then have your tour of duty extended?

What could be more damaging to the morale of the surviving troops than to see their buddy killed after his official go-home date?

A good percentage of our troops in Iraq today are victims of Bush`s bait-and-switch tactics. We like to boast of our all-volunteer military, but there`s nothing voluntary about being yanked away from your family and your job months or years after you thought you had completed your military obligation.

Yet, that`s what`s happening.

It`s being called a "backdoor draft." Bush doesn`t have the political courage to call for a regular draft before the Nov. 2 elections, so he`s taking advantage of our reservists and National Guardsmen until then. Here`s an example, as reported by Dick Foster in the Rocky Mountain News last Thursday:

"Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum -- re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.

"Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity."

The Bush people tell us that patriotic young Americans are flocking to enlistment stations to sign up, yet they can`t seem to field enough troops without screwing the reservists.

Something`s wrong with this picture.

They`d like to blame it on former President Bill Clinton, who did reduce the size of our bloated military behemoth, but Clinton`s been gone for almost four years now. It`s time for Bush and his fellow Republicans to take responsibility.

Let us put it in perspective. Our participation in World War II, from Pearl Harbor to V-J Day, was just slightly over 44 months. George Bush has been president slightly longer than that.

If our troop strength isn`t what it should be, who`s to blame? A former president? The Democratic minority in Congress? Or our tell-it-like-it-ain`t president, George W. Bush?

Our war against the Iraqi people is George W. Bush`s baby. The United Nations never authorized a war. The Security Council simply warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it didn`t play ball. Parents warn their children of "serious consequences"? Phrases like that can mean anything.

George W. Bush interpreted it to mean "all-out war by the United States."

Say what?

Congress, based on faulty intelligence and polls showing public support for a war, did give Bush the authority he needed to go to war if necessary to "defend the national security of the United States" and to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Bush wasn`t ordered to take us to war. He had a choice. He chose war. It`s his war. He alone has the responsibility for what has become of Iraq. He has the blood of 1,025 American troops on his hands. He swims in the blood of countless Iraqis.

It was his action that ended with the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure. It was his action that turned scores of blinded-with-anger anti-American terrorists into armies of terrorists.

And yet we are not in control of Iraq. Our troops have been ordered to hunker down, to keep as low a profile as possible until after the elections., Bush has ordered our troops to try to avoid getting killed between now and Nov. 2. -- not for strategic reasons or humanitarian reasons, but for personal political gain

We do not control one city in Iraq. In Afghanistan, in what started out as a bona fide war against terrorism, we are, for the most part, hunkered down in the capitol city of Kabul. We control part of Kabul. Warlords control the rest of Afghanistan. The heroin poppy trade is bigger than ever.

This is what George W. Bush has brought us. At best, a stand-off in Afghanistan. A certain defeat in Iraq. (Our intelligence people reported in July that the best we can hope for there is a continuation of the chaos that now exists.)

And yet half of America celebrates George W. Bush as a great leader. "He makes decisions," they tell us (never mind that he makes mostly bad decisions). "He`s a leader," they say, apparently unaware that the Pied Piper of Hamelin also was a leader.

Bottom line, "He`s one of us," they say. But he isn`t ... not unless you and I were pampered all of our lives and reared to believe we are better than other people.

We have dwelled lately on Bush`s past. That might be interesting, but the statute of limitations has run out. Let us dwell, please let us dwell, on what the man is today.

He isn`t much. His sins of the past few years greatly outweigh the sins of his youth. The Bush of 2002 is far more important than the Bush of 1972. Can we focus, please?

Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist. His column appears Mondays. E-mail him at [e-mail].


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/200…
©2004 SF Gate

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

"Do what I say and shut up!!"
[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
Informed Comment
[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Thoughts on the Middle East, History,and Religion
[/TABLE][Table align=left]

[/TABLE]

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

http://www.juancole.com/[

Monday, September 20, 2004

Bin Laden Doesn`t Care Who Wins

The remark of Speaker of the House Denis Hastert that al-Qaeda would like to manipulate the US election with a terrorist bombing and would be happier with Kerry as president is simply wrong. The Democrats are correct that such comments are a form of fear-mongering aimed at stampeding the American public into voting for Bush out of terror. Indeed, if the US public votes for any candidate because of concern for Bin Laden, then Bin Laden has been handed precisely the victory that Hastert professed to abhor.

But Hastert is just wrong. Al-Qaeda does not care who wins the elections. If the US withdraws from Iraq (which could happen willy-nilly under Bush as easily as under Kerry), that would be seen as a victory by al-Qaeda. If the US remains in Iraq for years, bleeding at the hands of an ongoing guerrilla insurgency, then that is also a victory for al-Qaeda from their point of view. They therefore just don`t care which candidate wins. They hate general US policy in the Middle East, which would not change drastically under Kerry. To any extent that al-Qaeda is giving serious thought to the US elections, it would see no significant difference between the candidates. But given its goal of creating more polarization between the US and the Muslim World, it is entirely possible that the al-Qaeda leadership would prefer Bush, since they want to "sharpen the contradictions."

posted by Juan @ [url9/20/2004 07:47:17 AM]http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109565983768232482[/url][

McCain vs. Iraqi Public

The rather bloodthirsty demand launched by Arizona Senator John McCain that the US military conquer Fallujah and other Sunni Arab cities of al-Anbar Province will not in fact enhance the possibility of free elections in January.

There are bad characters in those al-Anbar cities, without any doubt. There are persons responsible for the massive bombs that killed Kurds last winter and Shiites during Muharram rituals last spring. There are old-time Baath fascists and there are Sunni fundamentalists with a mindset not much different from that of al-Qaeda (even if they are, unlike al-Qaeda, mainly concerned with Iraqi independence of the US). I don`t doubt that finding ways to combat them or convince them to turn to civil politics is crucial to the future of Iraq.

But for the US military to frontally invade those cities, inevitably killing large numbers of innocent civilians, and potentially pushing even more of their inhabitants into joining the guerrilla war will not be without a political cost. During the US siege of Fallujah last April, several key Iraqi politicians resigned or threatened to, and even the Shiites of Kazimiyah (who ordinarily despise Sunni fundamentalists) sent them truckloads of aid. Even Coalition Provisional Authority polling that May found that Iraqi politicians who opposed the US action and attempted to negotiate an end to it had become national figures with high favoribility ratings. Hareth al-Dhari of the Association of Muslim Clerics is an example. His influential Association, by the way, has already said it will not contest the elections now set for January because they are being held under the shadow of a foreign Occupation. Razing Fallujah will not earn the US any good will with the Sunni Muslim clerics.

What does McCain think the election would look like, with Ramadi, Fallujah and other Sunni cities reduced to rubble? Does he think the sullen Sunni Arabs will actually just jump on a US bandwagon in the wake of such brutality? Does he have any idea of the sheer number of feuds that will have been incurred with the Sunni tribes?

Some much more subtle and effective form of counter-insurgency strategy is necessary.

It seems almost certain that most candidates for high office in Iraq will run against the US. I.e., their platform will probably include a promise to get US troops out of the country ASAP. Others will boycott the elections. The number of such boycotters, and the number of those running against the US, would be even greater in the wake of a bloody and indiscriminate US campaign against the townspeople of al-Anbar.

At the end of this misadventure, it seems more and more likely that a US soldier will report to his general, "We had to destroy the country to save it, sir!"

Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, visiting London, reaffirmed Sunday that his government will hold elections as scheduled, to the incredulity of Kofi Annan and other UN officials.

In bad news for Allawi, which had trumpeted the political settlement it had achieved with clan chieftains of Samarra, guerrillas blew up a roadside bomb there on Sunday, kiling an Iraqi soldier and a civilian, and wounding four American and three Iraqi troops.

Late Saturday and early Sunday, US warplanes and artillery struck Fallujah repeatedly. The bombardments killed four persons and wounded six. Although the US military typically points to the guerrillas it kills in such operations, it makes no accounting of the innocent civilians it kills and injures when bombing residential neighborhoods.

In Suwayrah, the Darwin Prize goes to four guerrillas who accidentally blew themselves up while planting a roadside bomb Saturday night.

Also over the weekend, US talks with the Shiite leaders of East Baghdad broke down over American demands that the Mahdi Army be disbanded in Sadr City and that the militiamen turn in their weapons.

posted by Juan @ 9/20/2004 06:17:07 AM

Letter to a Marine Reserve Officer

This is a piece of private correspondence with a thoughtful reserve officer who kindly took the time to remonstrate with me about comments he took to be "anti-military" on my web log.



Dear . . .

I can`t thank you enough for your detailed and (under the circumstances) gentlemanly letter, which I read with great attention.

Let me try to clear away what I think is a misconception. I am not anti-US military. My father spent 20 years in Signal Corps and then Sat Com in the army, and I grew up on bases. I have also . . . had interactions with officers here (where they are sometimes detailed to do an MA with us) and elsewhere. I have the greatest respect for the intelligence, culture and initiative of the US officer corps, and I am grateful to the Marines and the other services for defending our country. I thank you for your own service.

There are nevertheless things I don`t like about the way the Iraq war is being prosecuted. I don`t doubt that much of this is at the behest of "General Rove" and is by no means the fault of the military itself. They after all have to shoot where they are told to. Nevertheless, I do feel a need to speak out when I see things going wrong. That is my function as an analyst of the scene, and not to do it would be a dereliction of duty. And, sometimes the only way to make a strong point is to make it rudely.

One reason for my vehemence is that I think the US is walking a tight rope in Iraq. The Americans seem not to realize it, but it is entirely possible that the Iraqis will mount a nationwide urban revolutionary movement aimed at expelling the US. At that point the US military will be faced with a choice of committing massacres (as the Shah`s troops did at Black September in 1978) or leaving. Neither eventuality will lead to anything good.

I wasn`t on the scene at Haifa street and found the footage confusing, so I just don`t know what happened there. But whatever it was doesn`t smell right from the eyewitness accounts we have in the European and Arab press. I`d love to have your reaction to the suggestion made to me by one correspondent that the Bradley might have had some sort of intel equipment aboard and that was why it was important that it be completely destroyed before the guerrillas could loot it.

In general, as you can tell, I deeply disagree with using helicopter gunships and warplane bombardment of civilian neighborhoods as key tactics in fighting urban guerrillas. If the LAPD bombed Watts to get at the Cripps and the Bloods, there would be outrage. (In fact, that sort of thing was done in Philly with regard to MOVE and did cause outrage). You can`t attack urban areas that way without killing a lot of innocent people. It isn`t right, and I suspect it is a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. It is also politically inadvisable, since the people you are bombing in Kut and elsewhere started out only having a few guerrillas amongst them, but are pushed into vehement anti-Americanism by seeing their relatives killed this way.

My angry comments on Najaf derived from several sources. Mostly I was upset by the fighting in the holy city. It really, really angered all my Shiite friends and had geopolitical repercussions as far abroad as my old stomping grounds in Lucknow, India. After 9/11, surely it should by now be apparent that the US cannot act with impunity in the Muslim world, and right now we don`t need Shiite enemies alongside our Sunni and Wahhabi ones.

If it were true, as John Burns alleged, that the most recent round of fighting was set off by local Marine decisions, then that was most unwise. It may be, as you imply, that Burns was wrong, and that the policy was set higher up, and the Marines were only following orders. But it is actually unclear that Washington would have wanted a major fight in a sacred space just before the Republican National Convention, and I am inclined to credit Burns on this.

It seems obvious to me that the US military was perfectly willing to storm the Shrine, and indeed many were itching to do so. The Washington Post quoted one Marine as saying that the shrine "might not be there much longer."

That was the ignoramus, along with his like-minded colleagues, to whom I was mainly refering.

I know very well that the US officer corps knows about the significance of Najaf and Karbala . . . The problem is that they don`t know about that significance in their *guts*. It is still intellectual for them, as it obviously is for you. The Shrine of Imam Ali is, by the way, not a mosque, though a mosque is attached to it. It is a mausoleum.

That Muqtada`s guys were in the shrine did not necessitate the Marines storming the Shrine of Ali, which was clearly at some points envisaged. First of all, the Mahdi Army did not even control Najaf in March of 2003-- it was mainly in the hands of Badr Corps. It was the stupid American decision to "kill or capture" Muqtada in early April that led to his movement ensconcing itself in Najaf. So having caused the problem in the first place, the American solution to it was to piss all over the most sacred mausoleum in Shiite Islam. That is willful ignorance, I am afraid.

I am sure the local Marine commanders were manipulated by Adnan Zurfi and the Najaf elite, and probably Allawi as well. (A . . . State Department official intimated to me that Allawi was mainly behind it and Negroponte`s hands were tied). But, again, if the initiative came as Burns claims from local commanders, then what they did was most unwise (the polite way of putting it).

There are some things that the US should not do, period. Besieging Najaf and bombing the sacred cemetery is one of them. The whole city and its environs are holy, not just the shrine. It is very nice for Zurfi and Allawi if they can get us to do it, but we should resist being used that way.

Not only were all the Shiites in southern Iraq outside Najaf itself angered by the fighting in Najaf, but so were the Lebanese, Bahrainis, Iranians, Pakistanis, and Indians. An operation would have to be really important and urgent to make it worthwhile alienating 120 million people. I didn`t see the urgency. Most of the cities in Iraq are not under US control and are patrolled by militias. If you were going to pick a fight, Ramadi or Kut would have been preferable, because they lack the "gut" factor.

And, it is precisely by injuring these religious feelings that the US hastens the day when the Iraqi public comes out into the streets in the hundreds of thousands and begins the revolution for Iraqi independence.

posted by Juan @ 9/20/2004 06:05:00 AM

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Hostages in Iraq Face Death as Deadline Nears
Mon Sep 20, 2004 07:08 AM ET

By Andrew Marshall

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A deadline set by militants who have threatened to kill two Americans and a Briton seized in Iraq was due to expire Monday, and more than two dozen other hostages were also facing death unless rebel demands were met.

A group linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has claimed some of Iraq`s worst violence, said in footage posted on the Internet Saturday it would slit the throats of the three unless Iraqi women were freed from Abu Ghraib and Umm Qasr jails in 48 hours.

The families of Americans Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley and Briton Kenneth Bigley have appealed for their release. The men were seized from their house in Baghdad Thursday by a group of gunmen.

The U.S. military says no women are being held in the two prisons mentioned by the kidnappers but that two are in U.S. custody. Dubbed "Dr. Germ" and "Mrs. Anthrax" by U.S. forces, they are accused of working on Saddam Hussein`s weapons programs and are in a prison for high-profile detainees.

Zarqawi`s Tawhid and Jihad group has claimed responsibility for most of the bloodiest suicide bomb attacks in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. It has already beheaded several hostages including U.S. telecommunications engineer Nicholas Berg in May and South Korean driver Kim Sun-il in June.

The group released Filipino captive Angelo de la Cruz in July after Manila bowed to its demands to pull its troops out.

The United States has offered $25 million for information leading to the death or capture of Zarqawi, a Jordanian, and has launched a series of air strikes on his suspected hideouts in the rebellious town of Falluja, west of Baghdad.

The latest strike was Monday afternoon, residents said. There was no immediate word on casualties.

DOZENS OF HOSTAGES

Seven Westerners are among dozens of people being held hostage in Iraq. Two French journalists were seized a month ago, and two female Italian aid workers were kidnapped in broad daylight in central Baghdad earlier this month.

A statement purportedly from the group holding the French said at the weekend they were no longer captives but had agreed to stay with the group for some time to cover it. France said on Monday it was preparing for a long wait for their release.

Another group has threatened to kill 10 workers from a U.S.-Turkish firm unless the company that employs them stopped doing business in Iraq within three days. Most of the workers seized are believed to be Turkish.

Sunday, a guerrilla group said it had captured 18 members of Iraq`s National Guard and would kill them unless the authorities freed an aide to Shi`ite rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr within 48 hours. The aide, Hazem al-Araji, was arrested Saturday night by U.S.-backed forces, Sadr`s supporters said.

A senior aide to Sadr held a news conference to denounce the kidnapping of the National Guardsmen and call for their release.

Ali Smeisim said Sadr`s movement had nothing to do with the kidnappings, and also called for Araji`s release.

"The Sadr movement is facing a conspiracy to finish off its leaders through arrests and assassinations," he said.

The Association of Muslim Scholars, an influential Sunni group, said one of its members was murdered in Baghdad Sunday by unknown attackers.

DOUBTS OVER ELECTION

Hundreds of Iraqis were killed in a surge of violence over the past week, casting doubt on whether elections can go ahead in January 2005 as scheduled. But interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi insisted Sunday the polls would take place on time.

"We definitely are going to stick to the timetable of elections in January next year," Allawi told a news conference after talks in London with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The U.S. military says it has launched a drive to regain control of rebel-held areas ahead of the elections.

Blair and Allawi said at the weekend they were working to resolve the latest kidnappings.

Bigley`s brother, Phillip, appealed to the kidnappers on Al Arabiya television, saying: "Ken is a loving and caring father ... and he is looking forward to becoming a grandfather for the first time in February.

"At the end of the day, we just want him home, safe and well, especially for my mother."

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Military Fatalities: Total: 1167, US: 1032, Sept.04:58

http://icasualties.org/oif/

09/20/04 BBC: US-led troops die in Afghanistan
Two soldiers of the US-led coalition in Afghanistan have been killed in a gun battle, the US military has said.
09/20/04 AP: Explosions rock Baghdad
BAGHDAD, Iraq Loud explosions have rattled the Iraqi capital of Baghdad this morning as a spate of killings are being reported around the country.
09/20/04 middle-east-online: US-Iraqi forces seek to contain Haifa Street
Haifa Street residents have proudly dubbed Baghdad`s new frontline `Little Fallujah` which has become no-go zone for US troops.
09/20/04 AP: Blasts rock Fallujah
AT LEAST two people were killed and three wounded in explosions that rocked the rebel-held city of Fallujah today, hospital officials said.
09/20/04 csmonitor: Classic guerrilla war forming in Iraq
To many experts, the conflict in Iraq has entered a new phase that resembles a classic guerrilla war with US forces now involved in counterinsurgency. And despite the lack of ideological cohesion among insurgent groups...
09/20/04 wsvn: Three Florida Marines Get Bronze Stars For Service In Iraq
The 4th Air/Naval Gunfire Liaison Company in suburban West Palm Beach held ceremony Sunday to honor three of its own -- Staff Sgt. Derrick Leath, 30; Maj. James Purmort, 34; and Staff Sgt. Andre Rivera, 29.
09/20/04 BBC: Sunni clerics killed in Baghdad
Gunmen in Baghdad have killed two prominent clerics belonging to an influential Sunni Muslim group.
09/19/04 AP: 3 Iraqi hostages beheaded in grisly new video
A grisly video surfaced Sunday purporting to show militants sawing off the heads of three Iraqi members of a Kurdish party for cooperating with American forces...
09/19/04 Reuters: Group Threatens to Kill 15 Iraqi Soldiers
A hitherto unknown Islamist group has threatened to kill 15 captured Iraqi soldiers if authorities do not release an aide to Shi`ite rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr within 48 hours, Arab television Al Jazeera reported Sunday.
09/19/04 MedNews: 1 in 6 Combat Wounded...Need Treatment by Otolaryngologists
Improved Kevlar body armor has resulted in a distinctly new pattern of combat injuries. The majority of injuries now occur in unprotected areas of the body, including the head and neck regions.
09/19/04 AP: Residents bury victims of suicide attack
Residents in the Iraqi city of Kirkuk (keer-`KOOK) have begun burying those killed in yesterday`s massive suicide attack that killed at least 19 people
09/19/04 NYT: Hit men target Iraqis working for Americans
Iraqis who work on American military bases are on the front lines of a secret war being waged by the country`s violent insurgency. The killings are highly personal. Gunmen come to the homes and neighborhoods of the employees...
09/19/04 AP: Three Lebanese, Iraqi Driver Kidnapped
Three Lebanese men and their Iraqi driver have been kidnapped in Iraq, the Lebanese Foreign Ministry said Sunday, as Iraq`s prime minister said his government was working for the release of two Americans and a Briton also being held hostage.
09/19/04 WitchitaEagle: Soldier loses leg
The Bradley fighting vehicle smoked down Highway 10 outside Ramadi on April 6, racing to an aid station while Moore lost nine units of blood.. Under attack, his right leg hanging by a tendon, Lonnie Moore prepared to die.
09/19/04 AP: 3 Dead, 7 Hurt in Iraq Suicide Car Blast
A suicide attacker detonated a car bomb Sunday near a joint U.S.-Iraqi checkpoint, killing three people and wounding seven, including four U.S. soldiers in the northern city of Samarra, the military said
09/19/04 heraldsun: Jordanian hostage freed
JORDANIAN civil servant Alaa Thabet Lazim, who had been held hostage in Iraq for a month, was freed near the southern town of Nasiriyah today in a joint operation by the Iraqi police and national guard
09/19/04 Indo-Asian: Troops not to be sent to Iraq: Pakistan
Pakistan has a clear policy of not sending its troops into Iraq under the present circumstances, the country`s envoy to the UN has said.
09/19/04 AP: Suicide bombing kills three in Samarra
The U.S. military says a suicide bombing has killed three people in the northern city of Samarra.
09/19/04 AP: Two Explosions Echo Across Baghdad
Two explosions echoed across the Iraqi capital Sunday. It was not immediately clear what caused the late afternoon blasts.
09/19/04 TheObserver: Britain to cut troop levels in Iraq
The British Army is to start pulling troops out of Iraq next month despite the deteriorating security situation in much of the country, The Observer has learnt.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

George W. Bush Meets "Baghdad Bob"
It started with a joke, but once the laughter stopped I had to admit that the President`s sunny statements about Iraq last week did sound disturbingly similar to some of the classics uttered by Saddam`s former Minister of Information. "Be assured: Baghdad is safe."

By Greg Mitchell

(September 19, 2004) -- On his Friday night chat show on HBO, comedian Bill Maher cracked a joke about President Bush remaining relentlessly upbeat about our war effort in Iraq despite a week of seemingly serious setbacks. Bush, according to Maher, sounds more like "Baghdad Bob" every day.

Baghdad Bob, of course, was Saddam Hussein`s minister of information, now immortalized on t-shirts, Web sites and even a DVD for his optimistic, if fanciful, statements about Iraq`s triumph over the American infidels, right up to the point we toppled his boss`s statue. Baghdad Bob, real name Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, somehow survived and at last report was happily working as an Arab TV commentator, sans trademark beret.

Maher`s joke was funny because it got at an essential truth, even as he stretched it. But the next day, I got to thinking, what if that`s not such an exaggeration after all?
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
Consider that in the past week violence flared at unprecedented levels all over Iraq; U.S. deaths there soared past the 1,000 mark with more killed than at any time in recent weeks; a declassified National Intelligence Estimate painted a dire picture of prospects in Iraq; and reports circulated that our military plans to mobilize more troops and launch bloody attacks (post-election) on insurgent strongholds. A leading GOP senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, said, "the worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we`re winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse."

And yet President Bush suggested all week that Iraq was firmly on the path to stability and democracy. On Friday he told a newspaper, "The Iraqis are defying the dire predictions of a lot of people by moving toward democracy....I`m pleased with the progress."

So was John Kerry right last week when he said Bush was living in "a fantasy world of spin"? Is the president really not so different from Baghdad Bob? Should he now be known as "D.C. Dubya"? Or "Baghdad Bush"?

Here are a few Baghdad Bob classics from the spring of 2003 (courtesy of one of his many Web shrines), verbatim. See if you can imagine them coming out of the mouth of our president speaking to the press today.

*****

"I will only answer reasonable questions."

"No, I am not scared, and neither should you be."

"Be assured: Baghdad is safe, protected."

"We are in control, they are not in control of anything, they don`t even control themselves!"

"The battle is very fierce and God made us victorious."

"They mock me for how I speak. I speak better English than they do."

"I have detailed information about the situation...which completely proves that what they allege are illusions . . . They lie every day."

"I blame Al-Jazeera."

"I can assure you that those villains will recognize in the future how they are pretending things which have never taken place."

"I would like to clarify a simple fact here: How can you lay siege to a whole country? Who is really under siege now?"

"We`re giving them a real lesson today. Heavy doesn`t accurately describe the level of casualties we have inflicted."

"Those are not Iraqis at all. Where did they bring them from?"

"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"

"They are becoming hysterical. This is the result of frustration."

"Just look carefully, I only want you to look carefully. Do not repeat the lies of liars. Do not become like them."

"Search for the truth. I tell you things and I always ask you to verify what I say."

"The United Nations...it is all their fault."

"Even those who live on another planet, if there are such people, would condemn them."

"This is unbiased: They are retreating on all fronts. Their effort is a subject of laughter throughout the world."

"The force that was near the airport, this force was destroyed."

"They are achieving nothing; they are suffering from casualties. Those casualties are increasing, not decreasing."

"They think that by killing civilians and trying to distort the feelings of the people they will win."

"Our estimates are that none of them will come out alive unless they surrender to us quickly."

"They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion."

"Once again, I blame al-Jazeera. Please, make sure of what you say and do not play such a role."

"These cowards have no morals. They have no shame about lying."

"You can go and visit those places. Everything is okay. They are not in Najaf. They are nowhere. They are on the moon."

"Rumsfeld, he needs to be hit on the head."



Greg Mitchell ([e-mail]) is the editor of E & P and author of seven books on politics and history.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Back to regular view
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html


Quick exit from Iraq is likely

September 20, 2004

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

This prospective policy is based on Iraq`s national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein`s quest for weapons of mass destruction.

The reality of hard decisions ahead is obscured by blather on both sides in a presidential campaign. Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal. Sen. John Kerry`s political aides, still languishing in fantastic speculation about European troops to the rescue, do not even ponder a quick exit. But Kerry supporters with foreign policy experience speculate that if elected, their candidate would take the same escape route.

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush`s decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.

The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries -- especially Turkey -- that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations.

This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam`s police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation building after the dictator was deposed.

Abandonment of building democracy in Iraq would be a terrible blow to the neoconservative dream. The Bush administration`s drift from that idea is shown in restrained reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin`s seizure of power. While Bush officials would prefer a democratic Russia, they appreciate that Putin is determined to prevent his country from disintegrating as the Soviet Union did before it. A fragmented Russia, prey to terrorists, is not in the U.S. interest.

The Kerry campaign, realizing that its only hope is to attack Bush for his Iraq policy, is not equipped to make sober evaluations of Iraq. When I asked a Kerry political aide what his candidate would do in Iraq, he could do no better than repeat the old saw that help is on the way from European troops. Kerry`s foreign policy advisers know there will be no release from that quarter.

In the Aug. 29 New York Times Magazine, columnist David Brooks wrote an article (``How to Reinvent the GOP``) that is regarded as a neo-con manifesto and not popular with other conservatives.

``We need to strengthen nation states,`` Brooks wrote, calling for ``a multilateral nation-building apparatus.`` To chastened Bush officials, that sounds like an invitation to repeat Iraq instead of making sure it never happens again.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Published on Monday, September 20, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Losing Our Humanity
by Bud A. McClure


The war in Iraq is lost. The tipping point has been surpassed and no amount of violence unleashed by the U.S. military can restore the equilibrium in that country. Our invasion has plunged them into chaos. Iraq has now entered the beginning stages of civil war which will last for many years to come. The delusional dream of installing a model democracy in the Middle East has gone up in smoke, along with much of the country`s infrastructure. Iraqis are now clearly worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein. Much more bloodletting will come and thousands more will die because Bush, as he has recently asserted, "miscalculated." He purloined the passions of 9/11 by manipulating those feelings with lies about the threat Iraq posed to us and the world and falsely linked them to the terrorist attack in New York City. He deviously used the psychology of war-making to inflame a nation into sacrificing over 1000 of its young for a folly that he bet would ultimately inflate his political stature by making him a war time president. Now, in the face of overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that the dream is lost, Bush continues his deception. His campaign ads and political speeches before carefully selected and fawning crowds, assert that Iraq is free and building a democracy.

The media which played its time honored role in trumpeting and supporting the war has taken to a more objective reporting approach, with the exception of the more autocratic cable and radio stations, and has more realistically depicted the unfolding disaster in Iraq. Sadly, the myth of war, abetted by the Bush crowd, continues to trump the truth in spite of the statistic that nearly 60% of the public think something has gone awry over there. Even the hapless John Kerry has succumbed to the war myth. His courage from an earlier time was lost in his political calculus that speaking the truth about Iraq would lose him the election.

As much as Bush has lied about this war and it consequences for Iraq and us, the responsibility for its continuance now lies with each of us. As this mirage of a noble and just war evaporates in the desert heat each of us must take responsibility for ending the war by not glorifying it, by awaking up and condemning the senseless and wholesale slaughter that continues in our name. More importantly we must not allow our young people to be recruited into believing that this war is being fought for anything more than one man`s foolhardiness. There is nothing patriotic about this war. It is wholly nationalism, our collective dark side, the underbelly of what is moral and decent about this country. It is fueled by our ignorance, our hatreds, our racism, our anger, and the thousand unfathomable fears that our minds author. The Bush crowd cunningly manipulates these fears with their spurious terrorist alerts.

Instead of us wrapping our small towns in red, white and blue bunting and sacrificing more of our young to the carnage of war, we should wrap them in our arms and refuse to let them go. Instead of raising ole` glory, we should embrace our humility and fly her at half mast in homage to those we have killed. Instead of sticking a yellow magnet on our car that says "pray for our troops" we should pray for ourselves asking god`s forgiveness for worshiping the violence done in our names.

Unless we the people demand it, the killing and dying will continue. There is no other exit. The political season is upon us and for this period truth telling is forbidden. Neither of the candidates for president deserves our votes on this issue. Kerry because he sees the truth and will not speak, and Bush because he is blind to the truth and yet will not be silent.

Bud A. McClure is professor and chair of the Psychology Department at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He can be reaches at [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Viele Links:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1830
Incident on Haifa Street

Quotes of the Week: "When the Americans fire back, they don`t hit the people who are attacking them, only the civilians," said Osama Ali, a 24-year-old Iraqi who witnessed the attack [in Baghdad]. "This is why Iraqis hate the Americans so much. This is why we love the mujahedeen." (Dexter Filkins, Raising the Pressure in Iraq, the New York Times, Sept. 14)

"The United States military seemed set to press ahead with more attacks in Falluja. In areas just outside the city, American forces spoke through loudspeakers and called for a local militant, Omar Hadeed, to ‘come out and fight,` witnesses said Monday." (Sabrina Tavernise, U.S. Attacks Rebel Base in Falluja; 20 Are Killed, the New York Times, Sept. 14)

"Every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and hand-wringers who said it can`t be done. And every step of the way, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people have proven them wrong because they are determined to have a free and peaceful future. People said that there couldn`t be a transitional administration law, and there was one that was adopted by the Iraqi people. People said that there couldn`t be a transfer of sovereignty by June 30th -- and it happened even before June 30th. So every step of the way, the Iraqi people are proving the hand-wringers and the doubters wrong." (White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Press Briefing, September 15.)

Incident on Haifa Street

Are there any statistics from Iraq in recent weeks which don`t indicate trouble? Oil production, which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz once swore would fund the reconstruction of a democratic Iraq, is now crippled and well below prewar levels, while attacks on oil pipelines and facilities have risen sharply; American deaths are on the rise (53 for just over half of September) as are the numbers of our wounded, as are attacks on American troops, which are now averaging more than 80 a day, "four times the number of one year ago and 25 percent higher than last spring"; while the strains on American Guard and Reserve units, being called up ever more frequently, grow greater by the week; Iraqi civilian casualties have soared in recent weeks; and on the rise are the killings of Iraqi policemen, targeted by the insurgency, but also of translators, cleaning women, clothes washers, carpenters, anyone in fact who works with the occupying forces; "no-go" areas for American troops have been increasing steadily as parts of Iraq simply blink off the American map; the kidnapping of foreigners has risen as evidently has the under-the-table payment of ransom demands; the number of car-bombings has gone up and they are being ever more carefully coordinated; estimates of the numbers of insurgents and their supporters have been rising rapidly; more mortar shells are being dropped on U.S. bases; desertions from and the infiltration of the Iraqi battalions the American military has been training are high and possibly on the rise; the sophistication and deadliness of guerrilla attacks is on the rise; the number of CIA agents in the country has risen; American air strikes on heavily populated neighborhoods of Iraqi cities are on the rise; the fighting is still spreading (as the battles around Tal Afar, near the Turkish border, indicated last week); more schoolchildren are dropping out of school at ever earlier ages to help support their families; more highways are too dangerous to drive; the number of countries supporting the "coalition" with even handfuls of troops has been falling as have the numbers of troops in allied contingents; the number of articles in leading American newspapers announcing that large swathes of Iraq have passed from American control is on a precipitous upward curve; the number of military experts ready to declare the war in Iraq in some fashion lost is also on a steep upward climb; while -- and nothing could be more devastating than this -- on advice from its new staff and ambassador in Baghdad, the Bush administration has gone back to Congress to switch $3.4 billion in Congressionally mandated reconstruction funds from two of the most important areas of daily life -- the generation of electricity and the purification of water supplies ("`Maku Karaba, Maku Amin` -- no electricity, no security -- is still the cry of Iraqis on the street") -- largely to "security"; that is, to the creation of Iraqi forces that will nominally fight under the banner of Iyad Allawi`s regime but essentially under American command. (Does no one remember Richard Nixon`s disastrous "Vietnamization" program?) The only number in this last month that seems not to have risen precipitously, but has remained doggedly at zero is the number of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological or chemical) in Saddam Hussein`s possession before the invasion began.

But let`s turn from the large and statistical to a single incident that made the news repeatedly last week, an incident on Baghdad`s Haifa Street, known locally as "Death Street" for the regular ambushes that take place there. The thoroughfare, part of a Sunni neighborhood in the capital that has been a hotbed of opposition to the Americans, lies across the Tigris river from, but only several hundred yards away from what`s now being called the "International Zone" (as in neocolonial Shanghai) but is better known as the Green Zone, the highly fortified area where the U.S. embassy and the Allawi government have existed, until recently, in air-conditioned (relative) splendor.

On Saturday night, September 11, unknown guerrillas began pounding the Green Zone with mortars. The area had certainly been mortared before, but on a distinctly hit and run basis. This time, there was evidently far more mortaring and far less running. The initial September 13 New York Times report (Sabrina Tavernise, "Scores Are Dead After Violence Spreads in Iraq") commented that "rarely has the bombardment [there] been so persistent and intense." When the intermittent mortaring hadn`t stopped by morning, the Americans sent out troops to locate the guerrillas and undoubtedly fell into a planned ambush, one aspect of changing tactics as the insurgency grows ever stronger. ("Militants," reports Kim Housego of the Associated Press, "now follow up roadside bomb attacks with a deluge of rocket-propelled grenades instead of fleeing, or fire off mortar rounds to lure soldiers out of their base and into freshly laid mine fields, [U.S.] military commanders say.")

Those troops, in turn, came under fire, or were attacked by a suicide car bomber or a car bomb, and Bradley Fighting Vehicles were then sent out to rescue them. One of the Bradley`s was subsequently disabled on Haifa Street, possibly by a suicide car bomber or a car bomb, and its crew promptly came under fire. In the course of all this, six American soldiers were wounded, including two of the Bradley crewmen who were quickly rescued and evacuated leaving the wrecked vehicle behind. Later, a crowd gathered, including children; the black and yellow banner of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi`s Tawhid and Jihad terrorist group was brought out; members of the Arab media appeared to do TV reports; time passed -- three hours according to the BBC -- and then two American helicopters returned, made several passes over the vehicle with the black banner by now stuffed in the Bradley`s gun barrel and the guerrilla fighters evidently long gone.

At that point, according to Patrick J. McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times, the helicopter pilots let loose a barrage of "seven rockets and 30 high-caliber machine-gun rounds onto a crowded Baghdad street," an action American officials later deemed "an appropriate response." The vehicle was pulverized and thirteen people, evidently mainly bystanders including a girl, died and many more were wounded. Most important, in terms of the attention the incident has received, Mazen Tomeizi, a Palestinian producer for the al Arabiya satellite network of Dubai was killed in the attack while on camera, his blood spattering the lens, and Seif Fouad, a Reuters cameraman, was wounded. The scene of Tomeizi dying, while crying out, "Seif, Seif! I`m going to die. I`m going to die," which briefly made prime-time news in the U.S., was shown over and over again on Arab networks, to local and regional outrage.

The American military promptly offered three explanations for the attack in crowded Baghdad: the helicopters were providing covering fire for withdrawing American troops; the Bradley had "sensitive equipment and weapons" that might be looted by "anti-Iraqi forces" ("The helicopters `fired upon the anti-Iraqi forces and the Bradley preventing the loss of sensitive equipment and weapons,` the [U.S.] statement said. ‘An unknown number of insurgents and Iraq civilians were wounded or killed in the incident```); and that the helicopters took ground fire from the crowd as they passed overhead (though TV film of the incident indicates that no firing came from around the Bradley itself, at least in the moments before the attack, nor can the sound of gunfire be heard before the helicopters let loose their missiles).

The first of these explanations was withdrawn the next day. The second has been largely withdrawn since. The third -- that the helicopters were just returning fire -- stands along with a claim that, according to the LA Times` McDonnell, "it was unclear what caused the casualties -- volleys from the helicopters, explosions from ammunition in the Bradley or insurgent fire." The fog of war is, of course, a convenient hiding place for military officials in situations like this as, after a fashion, it was for military investigators of the acts seen in those photos at Abu Ghraib. There, as Mark Danner pointed out recently in the New York Review of Books, they spoke of "`misinterpretation/confusion incidents` (those committed by military intelligence soldiers, who, however, were ‘confused` about what was permitted at Abu Ghraib as a matter of policy)."

Self-defense based on ground fire was, in fact, the basis on which, according to Dexter Filkins of the New York Times, the commander of American forces in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli would, by week`s end, explain the deaths on Haifa Street. He took a rare step (for Americans in Iraq), addressing Arab and Western reporters in a conference room at "Camp Victory," the ill-named American military headquarters, on the incident ("We wanted to explain, particularly to the Iraqi people, that we do everything we can to eliminate collateral damage."), defending the military`s acts ("The actions of our soldiers and pilots were well within their rights."), sympathizing with the families of the dead ("I grieve their losses and give my condolences to their families."), but not, of course, apologizing.

Among the unacceptable military explanations for the deaths on Haifa Street: Frustration, anger ("The Army said it was not the sight of the insurgent flag on the Bradley vehicle that triggered the helicopter strike."), or revenge (think: punishment) as in Falluja last April; and certainly not the fear of sending troops a few hundred yards from the Green Zone into a possible further ambush. Many Iraqis are naturally outraged that American helicopters missiled a crowd in downtown Baghdad, whatever the reason. (Imagine the same thing happening on, say, Connecticut Avenue in Washington or upper Broadway in New York.) But what are we to make of this? What does the incident on Haifa Street tell us about our situation in Iraq?

From no-go to free-fire zones

For the last weeks, there have been a number of front page stories in major papers about the way in which the insurgency in Iraq has altered. On Wednesday, for instance, Farnaz Fassihi and Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal had a front page piece headlined "Rebel Attacks in Iraq Reveal New Cooperation" with passages like:

"Iraq`s once highly fragmented insurgent groups are increasingly cooperating to attack U.S. and Iraqi government targets, and steadily gaining control of more areas of the country… `The insurgents are no longer operating in isolated pockets of their own. They are well-connected and cooperating,` said Sabah Kadhim, a senior adviser to Iraq`s Interior Ministry, which oversees the police and security around the country."

In the meantime, information about the first CIA National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq since the infamously cooked NIE of October 2002 -- this one initiated before former Director George Tenet left the Agency and perhaps a case of Tenet`s revenge -- was leaked to Douglas Jehl of the New York Times. That paper then front-paged its gloomy scenarios. These ranged from the maintenance of a "tenuous," strife-torn country to outright civil war. ("A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.") But until the incident on Haifa Street, recent reporting had focused on the loss of Falluja or Ramadi or Samarra or Baquba or the way the "Sunni Triangle" was blinking off the American map of Iraq. What was remarkable about the incident on Haifa Street was that a part of Iraq only hundreds of yards from one of our most fortified strongpoints was blinking off as well -- so much so that when our commanders decided to take out a disabled vehicle or offer payback, they chose to do so from the air.

Though headlines about bombing runs over Falluja are increasingly commonplace, the use of air power is certainly one of the great missing stories in our ongoing war in Iraq. I`ve seen a single, modest AP piece by Robert Burns featuring the subject -- but no overviews at all; no strategic discussions of the subject even as our military comes to rely ever more on air power for attacking in urban Iraq; and certainly no legal or moral discussions of the programmatic bombing of heavily populated urban areas. Nothing.

In our ability to let loose destructive power at great distances and by air, the United States military is undoubtedly unparalleled as a power today. And yet here`s the counterintuitive way you have to think about American airpower in Iraq: Watch where the bombs and missiles are falling -- starting with Falluja and ending up on Haifa Street -- and you can map almost exactly where American power is blinking off. The use of air power, in other words, is a sign of American weakness. Its use maps our inability to control Iraq. To the extent that you can monitor our air power, you`ll know much about what`s going badly in that country, in part because the resort to air power in a guerrilla war means the surefire alienation of the contested population. It means that you`ve given up on "hearts and minds," to use a classic Vietnam-era phrase, and turned to the punitive destruction of bodies and souls.

Air power -- as in Vietnam -- is a harder story to cover than ground fighting. The planes take off; the reporters don`t follow. And yet, for any reporter looking for a good story, there`s a great -- if horrific -- one here, one with deep history in Iraq. After all, when the Brits found they couldn`t control the country in the 1920s, they pioneered the use of air power as a weapon of bloody punishment and retribution in the resistant villages of Iraq.

(There is, by the way, another intertwined missing story here: that of Western reporters in Baghdad and what they can actually report -- which seems to be next to nothing. If you listen to the New York Times` John Burns and other American reporters taking up their nighttime jobs as pundits on shows like Nightline or Charlie Rose, they sometimes do discuss, at least in passing, the extreme limitations on their ability to report in person on any story from Iraq. But have you seen a single piece in any American paper on a day in the life of a reporter in Baghdad? I think not, although for many western reporters it is clearly now increasingly perilous simply to leave one`s fortified post or hotel to report within the confines of Baghdad itself, no less travel anywhere in the country.

If anything, parts of Iraq began blinking off the map of American reportage long before they disappeared from the military map of the country. Now our reporters, unless embedded with American forces, are largely trapped in restricted parts of Baghdad, waiting for the war to come to the Green Zone. Most of the major papers have hired Iraqi reporters to help them out, but don`t imagine for a second that what you`re reading is simply the news from Iraq. Note, for instance, that when the helicopters struck in Haifa Street, only several hundred yards from the Green Zone, Arab television was there but, as far as I could see, not CNN or the networks. The reasons for all this are quite understandable. Iraq is now a desperately perilous place for unarmed, or even armed, westerners. I won`t be surprised when the first American news organizations, like the last of the relief organizations, simply decide to pull out. What`s far less understandable is that the conditions for reporting in Iraq, for our "news" on Iraq, go largely unreported.)

In the meantime, as the incident in Haifa Street indicated, Iraq is blinking off the map of Iyad Allawi`s government as well. Unlike Hamid Karzai ("the mayor of Kabul") in Afghanistan, Allawi turns out not even to be the mayor of Baghdad. The vast Shiite slum of Sadr City in the capital, with two million residents, has long been a near no-go area for American or allied Iraqi troops. But what the incident on Haifa Street made clearer is that a neighborhood only the equivalent of three football fields from one of the most fortified spots in Iraq has also slipped from American -- and Allawi – control, and so has become a target for air power.

Perhaps the week`s most remarkable story appeared in the conservative British Financial Times which in its editorial pages only the week before had called for some kind of staged withdrawal of American and British forces from Iraq. In a September 15 piece headlined, "Green Zone is ‘no longer totally secure,`" James Drummond and Steve Negus reported that:

"US military officers in Baghdad have warned they cannot guarantee the security of the perimeter around the Green Zone, the headquarters of the Iraqi government and home to the US and British embassies, according to security company employees. At a briefing earlier this month, a high-ranking US officer in charge of the zone`s perimeter said he had insufficient soldiers to prevent intruders penetrating the compound`s defences.

"The US major said it was possible weapons or explosives had already been stashed in the zone, and warned people to move in pairs for their own safety. The Green Zone, in Baghdad`s centre, is one of the most fortified US installations in Iraq. Until now, militants have not been able to penetrate it."

This is a remarkable development actually, far worse than anyone is yet saying, and our response is to loose air power on the situation. We still generally claim, of course, that our strikes whether in Falluja or on Haifa Street, like the Israeli targeted assassinations in Gaza and the West Bank on which they were originally patterned, are "surgical," "targeted," "precise," and carefully planned to avoid "collateral damage." But reports from hospitals in Falluja and elsewhere indicate that, as is hardly surprising when you bomb heavily populated civilian areas, this is at best a fantasy of military planners. In fact, we already seem to be in a process -- familiar enough from our Vietnam experience -- by which "no-go" areas will slowly be transformed into "free fire zones."

Just this Sunday, a New York Times front-page piece by Dexter Filkins (U.S. Plans Year-End Drive To Take Iraqi Rebel Areas) reports that, according to an unnamed senior American commander, "the military intend to take back Falluja and other rebel areas by year`s end" -- after, that is, the November elections in the U.S. but before the scheduled Iraqi ones.

Here, then, is a vision of Iraq`s future (and ours) not to be found in the latest National Intelligence Estimate: Barring some spectacular negotiated deal, we "take," which would mean "flatten," Fallujah. (For comparison, just consider what happened to the old city of Najaf, blocks of which are now in rubble after a couple of weeks of fighting which ended dramatically with a 2,000 pound bomb being dropped on a hotel near the holy shrine of the Imam Ali.) Imagine further whole swaths of urban Iraq being turned into free-fire zones and transformed into rubble -- and an ever larger insurgency.

It is in this context that our President now rejects the CIA`s July National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and speaks of continuing "progress" in that country. It is in this context that his press spokesman decries "handwringers" and "pessimists." It is in this context that he and his vice-president continue to shellac another layer of fantasy onto what Jonathan Schell in his most recent column in the Nation (Organizing Amnesia) calls the "delusions that have been laid down now, layer after layer, for more than fifty years." In much of this, from early reporting on Saddam`s weapons of mass destruction through our vaunted "transfer of sovereignty" to the Allawi interim government, our media and the whole pundit class has been conjoined with the administration in delusional activities.

But those Iraqi insurgents threatening to make their way into the Green Zone also threaten to make their way into George Bush`s fantasy Iraq (as the Vietnamese once fought their way into another President`s fantasy of battlefield and political "progress"). Parts of Iraq are already blinking off the President`s map. The only question is whether he can hold his fantasyland together through November 2. On this, his opponent has been of great aid and comfort.
Tom

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Rasmussen Poll erhebt jeden Tag Daten bei dem Vergleich Bush Kerry und macht auch seine eigenen Befragungen in den Staaten.
Dort Bush 213, Kerry 189 Wahlmänner. 136 Toss up.

Electoral College 2004 Projected / 2000 Final Results

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Electoral%20College%20Table.…
Electoral College Projections

Based Upon Most Recent Rasmussen Reports Survey Data and Election 2000 Results

Electoral College

2004 Projected
Bush 213
Kerry 189
Toss up 136
Total 538




September 20, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projection shows George W. Bush with 213 Electoral Votes and John Kerry with 189. There are eleven states with 136 Electoral Votes in the Toss-Up category.

Generally speaking, any state where the candidate leads by less than five points is considered a Toss-Up.

* Bush has a lead from one to four points in six Toss-Up states with 72 Electoral Votes (Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin).

* Kerry has a lead from one to four points in three Toss-Up states with 22 Electoral Votes (Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon).

To review our most recent state-by-state projection, click HERE.

Kerry was ahead our Electoral College projections from June until mid-August. His largest lead was 227 to 177 on June 9. Bush pulled ahead for the first time in the weekend leading up to the Republican National Convention.

One of the more significant shifts in the campaign is that states like Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are now viewed as key battlegrounds. These are states that Gore won in 2000 and that Democrats must now defend. Early in the summer, these states were leaning fairly strongly in Kerry`s direction. At that time, Bush states like North Carolina and Virginia were closer than expected. Democrats at that time had dreams of Southern surprises. But, those possibilities have disappeared.

It`s also worth noting that New Jersey and New York are much closer than expected. It is hard to imagine these states slipping into the Republican column without a major popular vote victory for Bush. However, we will continue to update these state polls on a weekly basis for Premium Members.

Since the Republican National Convention, we have released state election polls for California, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Additional state polls will be released in the coming days.

Rasmussen Reports Premium Members receive daily Tracking Poll updates on Ohio along with Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Daily updates for Minnesota will be added later this week. Premium Members also receive weekly updates on fifteen states along with other benefits.

To review our most recent state-by-state projection, click HERE.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 211 Bush 327

Der Unterschied zu Rasmussen ist, dass hier alle Staaten zugeteilt werden auch bei kleinstem Vorsprung und es werden alle Polls, immer der letzte zu Grunde gelegt.
Ich finde die Seite deshalb interessant, weil dort sehr viel über das US-Wahlsystem zu erfahren ist.
Heute die letzten Umfragen vor der Wahl 2000.
Nur zwei Institute lagen richtig. Gore hatte einen Vorsprung von 0,5%.
Interessant auch wie die Institute abgschnitten haben die falsch `normalize` haben. Siehe Votemaster Text vom 18.09.

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep20.png

News from the Votemaster

Time is running out. While the election is 6 weeks away, the deadline for registering as a voter is almost upon us. In most states it is in less than two weeks. This rapidly approaching deadline is especially important for the 5 million overseas voters who have to send in the registration form by snail mail, although in some states there is now a way to beat the deadline by fax, as described on the Americans abroad page. If you, your family, or your friends are not registered to vote yet, now is the time.

Some voters have a choice where to register. When George Bush picked Dick Cheney as his running mate in 2000, there was the minor matter that Cheney` presence on the ticket might cause Bush to lose Texas` 32 votes in the electoral college and hence the election. Seems the constitution says electors can`t vote for both a president and a vice president from their own state. In the spring of 2000, both Bush and Cheney were living in Texas and registered to vote in Texas. Cheney finessed the problem by changing his voter registration to Wyoming, where he had a summer home. This act could be considered creative voter registration because by no stretch of the imagination did Dick Cheney suddenly become a resident of Wyoming. He continued to live in Texas where he was running Halliburton, the oil services company that continued to pay him a salary even while he was vice president of the United States. The latter job doesn`t pay very well--only $202,900 per year--so a bit on the side is always helpful. That Halliburton received a $7 billion no-bid contract to help rebuild Iraq`s oil industry is mere coincidence.

But even if you are not Dick Cheney, Cheney`s first law of voter registration ("Register where it helps most") may apply to you. In particular, college students studying in a swing state may be able to choose choose between their parents` address and their college address. If a student has no plans to ever live with his or her parents again, a good case can be made that the student no longer lives in the parent`s state and can thus register in the college`s state. Students living in a dorm and paying out-of-state tuition have a weak case, but can argue that they are planning to run for vice president some day. Students living off campus or paying in-state tuition have a strong case. If you are from a solid state and are studying in a swing state (or vice versa), or have a child, grandchild, friend, or neighbor in this category, please see Swing State Voter Project for details. Also, if you are a snowbird and live for 6 months in the North and 6 months in Florida where you own or rent a house or condo, register in Florida. But hurry. Being registered in two states is illegal, so if you register in a new state, be sure to cancel the old one. If George Orwell were alive now, he would say "All votes are equal but some votes are more equal."

There are seven new polls today. In Florida Bush`s lead has dropped to 1%. But the strangest result is in New Hampshire, where the Rasmussen 7-day tracking poll puts Kerry ahead by 6% again. The Mason-Dixon poll of Sept. 13-15 giving Bush a 9% lead was just way off. A 15% change in two days in a small homogeneous state in the absence of any major news is unthinkable.

Many new polls are due out today. I might put out a supplementary map late in the afternoon (Eastern time) if I have the time, but I will have everything tomorrow morning. Please DON`T send me mail telling me about the new polls; I know where to find them. Thanks.

If you missed Saturday`s update you might want to check it out as there was a long discussion of polling accuracy there. There was a bit more on Sunday. A summary of that material is now on the Articles and books page.

On the subject of polling accuracy, many people have asked me how well the final election 2000 polls did. After a great deal of effort, I was able to find 15 polls taken in the final 3 weeks before the Nov. 7, 2000 election. They are listed below (and also on the More data page for future reference. The bottom line is that Zogby and CBS were the only ones that predicted that Gore would win the popular vote, and CBS can`t gloat too much because although its Nov. 4-6 poll was right on the money, its Nov. 1-4 poll predicted a 5% margin for Bush. In reality, Gore won by half a million votes or 0.5%. Harris and Opinion Dynamics predicted ties and the other 11 predicted Bush would win the popular vote with margins ranging from 2% to 6%. I have not found any polls predicting the electoral vote the way this site does. For that reason, I may just keep this site alive until Nov. 2008 so there will be better historical data available next time.
Pollster News
organization Dates Gore Bush Nader Not sure N LV/RV

ABC ABC Nov. 3-5 45 48 3 2 1801 LV
American Viewpoint (R) Oct. 18-22 40 42 5 11 800 LV
CBS News CBS Nov. 4-6 45 44 4 6 1091 LV
CBS/NYT CBS/NYT Nov. 1-4 42 47 5 5 1158 LV
Gallup CNN/USA Today Nov. 5-6 46 48 4 - 2350 LV
Harris Nov. 3-5 47 47 5 - 1348 LV
Hart (D) / Teeter (R) NBC/WSJ Nov. 3-5 44 47 3 4 1026 LV
Marist College Nov. 1-2 44 49 2 4 623 LV
Opinion Dynamics Fox Nov. 1-2 43 43 3 10 1000 LV
Princeton Survey Pew Nov. 2-5 47 49 4 - 1301 LV
Princeton Survey Newsweek Oct. 31-Nov. 2 43 45 5 7 808 LV
Princeton Survey Bloomberg Oct. 23-29 43 46 5 5 LV
Wirthline (R) Oct. 20-23 43 47 4 5 751 LV
Yankelovich Time/CNN Oct. 25-26 43 49 3 4 1076 LV
Zogby Reuters Nov. 4-6 48 46 5 1 - ?

The MoE for each poll depends on the sample size (N). As a quick rule of thumb, the MoE at the 95% confidence level is about 100%/square-root(N), so for N = 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000, the MoEs are 4.4%, 3.2%, 2.6%, and 2.2%, respectively. These numbers are not exact, but are good enough for government work. But remember, the MoE refers only to sampling error. If there were errors in the methodology, the true mean may be way outside the MoE range. All the pollsters except Zogby, about which I am not sure, used their grandma`s special secret receipe for predicting likely voters and except for CBS` final poll, all got it wrong. As I mentioned on Saturday, from now on I will use registered voters instead of likely voters when the data are available.

Pollsters judge their results not by whether they picked the the right horse, but by whether both candidates fell within the ranges predicted by the MoE. Using this criterion, let`s see how well they did. The poll taken closest to the election was Gallup`s poll of Nov. 5-6, the Sunday and Monday before the election. The prediction was Gore 46%, Bush 48%. The sample was exceptionally large (N = 2350) giving a MoE of 2.1%. That means Gallup was predicting Gore`s total would fall in the range 43.9% to 48.1% and Bush`s total would fall in the 45.9% to 50.1% range. The actual result was Gore 48.4% and Bush 47.9%. Thus in purely technical terms, a poll ending the day before the election wasn`t able to get both numbers right.

Note that the polls above were taken during the final three weeks of the election. This year the pollsters have an even tougher job for several reasons. First, More people are uncallable because their only phone is a cell phone, cable phone, or Internet phone. Second more callable people screen out pollsters with caller ID or answering machines. Third, overseas voters, who are never polled, are registering in droves. And fourth, both parties are putting so much effort into signing up new voters that the statistical models of the electorate used for normalizing the polls are increasingly invalid because they are based in part on 2000 and 2002 exit polls and the electorate may be quite different this time.

This may seem an odd story coming from an election site, sort of like a soft drink company telling you their products rot your teeth. Polls aren`t useless, but you have to understand their limitations to interpret them correctly.

More people complained about the new colors than approved of them, including people who are color blind, so I have gone back to the original colors.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Die Enthauptung der US-Geisel wird das Interesse der USA wieder voll auf den Irak lenken.

washingtonpost.com
Iraqi Militants Behead American
Video of Killing is Posted on the Internet, Body Recovered

By Steve Fainaru and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 20, 2004; 4:54 PM

BAGHDAD, Sept. 20 -- A group led by a Jordanian terrorist announced Monday that it has killed a kidnapped American construction contractor, posting on an Islamic Web site a grisly video of the captive being beheaded.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
The video identified the American as Eugene "Jack" Armstrong, one of three westerners the group abducted last week and threatened to kill unless U.S. forces in Iraq released all female Iraqi prisoners. Also held captive were another American contractor and a British engineer.

The authenticity of the video could not immediately be confirmed, but news agencies reported that a masked man who read a statement on it sounded like Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian who has been identified as the speaker on similar videos in recent months.

After reading the statement, the man took out a large knife and sawed off the head of a blindfolded man wearing an orange jumpsuit. The nine-minute video showed the banner of Zarqawi`s Monotheism and Jihad group, which claimed to have kidnapped Armstrong and the two other men.

The video was posted after the expiration of a 48-hour deadline for the release of all Muslim women detained at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad and in another prison in the southern port city of Umm Qasr.

U.S. officials have said the only women held by coalition forces in Iraq were biologists allegedly connected to a weapons program under former president Saddam Hussein. They said the women, Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash and Rihab Taha, are both being held at Camp Cropper near the Baghdad airport.

Armstrong was abducted Thursday in Baghdad with another U.S. contractor, Jack Hensley, and a British engineer, Kenneth Bigley, in a bold raid on their two-story house in one of the capital`s most affluent neighborhoods. In an operation similar to the kidnapping of two Italian aid workers from their offices the previous week, as many as 10 gunmen in a minivan pulled up in front of the contractors` compound, barged inside the gate and snatched the three men from their house without firing a shot, neighbors said.

Armstrong grew up in Hillsdale, Mich., but left the area around 1990. His brother, Frank, still lives there. Armstrong`s work in construction took him around the world; he lived in Thailand with his wife before going to Iraq.

The other American hostage, Hensley, 48, made his home in Marietta, Ga., with his wife Patty and their 13-year-old daughter. Armstrong, Hensley and Bigley, 62, all worked for Gulf Services Co. of the United Arab Emirates, a private contractor involved in reconstruction projects in Iraq, a company spokesman said.

The British government and the brother of Bigley had appealed for his and the Americans` release in statements broadcast repeatedly Monday on the Arab satellite television station al-Arabiya, the Associated Press reported.

"Ken has enjoyed working in the Arab world for the last 10 years in civil engineering and has many Arabic friends and is understanding and appreciative of the Islamic culture," said Philip Bigley.

"He wanted to help the ordinary Iraqi people and is just doing his job," he said. "At the end of the day, we just want him home safe and well, especially for my mum Lil."

The AP reported that Hensley`s wife, Patty, appeared on al-Jazeera and said her husband, like all Americans in Iraq, was there to help the Iraqi people.

Patty Hensley told ABC`s "Good Morning America" in an interview broadcast Monday that her husband had been optimistic about his safety in Iraq, but that had changed in recent days, when the group`s Iraqi security guards stopped showing up for work or found excuses to leave.

On NBC`s "Today" show Monday, Ty Hensley said his brother went to Iraq in February after failing to find construction work because he needed money to support his family. He said his brother recently wrote home saying he was being "staked out" and that the guards feared for their own safety.

The violence besetting Iraq continued unabated Monday with the killing of two Sunni Muslim clerics in Baghdad and a car bomb explosion in the northern city of Mosul that killed three people, even as interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi was making the case for going ahead with national elections scheduled for January.

Practically the only positive news for the Iraqi government was the reported release of 18 members of the Iraqi National Guard who were seized by another insurgent group last week.

On a visit to London, Allawi once again sought to convince the world that Iraq was capable of holding the scheduled election notwithstanding concerns expressed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Allawi, who is due in Washington later this week, told a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair Monday that "we have to do it because once democracy is victorious in Iraq, it is a big defeat for terrorists and terrorism. . . .

"Terrorists are coming and pouring in from various countries into Iraq to try and undermine the situation in Iraq," Allawi said. "They`re coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan, from Europe, from Morocco, from Syria and so on.

"Iraq is on the front line of fighting these terrorists," he said. "And, God forbid, if Iraq is broken or the will of Iraq is broken, then London would be a target, Washington will be a target, Paris will be a target, Cairo will be a target, as we have seen in the past."

The killing of the Sunni clerics raised again the potential for sectarian warfare between members of Iraq`s majority Shiite Muslim community and the country`s Sunni Muslims.

The clerics, according to the al-Jazeera satellite television network, were Hazim Zaidi, whose body was found late Sunday in front of a mosque in the Sadr City section of Baghdad, and Muhammed Jadwa, who was shot Monday as he was leaving a mosque in western Baghdad.

Both were members of the Association of Muslim Scholars, an influential Sunni group. No group claimed responsibility for the death of the two clerics.

Other clerics from the association have been killed in the past year by unknown assailants. The motives remain uncertain, although U.S. officials have in the past cited a desire by militants linked to insurgent leader Zarqawi to stir sectarian conflict in Iraq.

The killings and the new kidnappings followed the arrest Sunday of an aide to radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr by U.S. and Iraqi security forces. The aide, Hazim Araji, is a spokesman for Sadr in the Kadhimiya district of Baghdad.

Al-Jazeera reported Sunday that a previously unknown organization calling itself the Brigades of Mohammed bin Abdullah was threatening to kill the Iraqi National Guard members unless the Sadr aide was released. The same network said Monday afternoon that the guardsmen had been released in response to a demand by Sadr, who had denounced the kidnapping through a spokesman.

Also Monday, U.S. warplanes struck the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, west of the capital, killing two people and wounding three, news services reported. The U.S military said the missile strike hit Tawhid and Jihad militants who were setting up fortifications in the city.

The Iraqi Health Ministry said that in the 24 hours before Monday`s airstrike, seven Iraqis were killed and 14 wounded in U.S. attacks on Fallujah.

Branigin reported from Washington. Staff writer Fred Barbash in Washington and correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran in Baghdad contributed to this article.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 21, 2004
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Bush Drew Record $259 Million During Primaries
By GLEN JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - President Bush raised roughly $259 million as he marched unchallenged through the primary season, shattering the record for presidential fund-raising and collecting millions more than his opponent, according to campaign finance reports filed Monday.

In addition, the campaign got a boost worth millions in August thanks to the timing of Mr. Bush`s transition to public financing, which took place after he accepted the Republican nomination this month at the party`s convention in New York.

While Senator John Kerry spent August conserving the $75 million in public money he received at the time of the Democratic convention in late July, the president had an additional month to raise and spend contributions and he used it.

The Bush campaign collected $18.5 million in August, spent about $14 million and closed the month with almost $37 million in the bank, money that can now be transferred to the Republican Party after the campaign pays its expenses.

Furthermore, Mr. Bush began this month with $75 million of his own public financing, while Mr. Kerry had about $62 million left in his account, according to a report filed by the Kerry campaign with the Federal Election Commission.

Mr. Bush`s report is among the final documentation of fund-raising in the primary season by the two candidates. The two campaigns and the party committees that support them collected more than $1 billion and set myriad fund-raising records, even as they operated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which gets its first test this year.

While the new law banned candidates and political parties from collecting the unlimited "soft money" contributions that were once a cornerstone of presidential election financing, it also doubled to $2,000 the amount that an individual can contribute to a presidential campaign.

Mr. Kerry collected more than $233.5 million through July, when the campaign stopped raising money in favor of public funds. Though he raised less than Mr. Bush, Mr. Kerry rode a wave of support after winning the primaries, collected tens of millions over the Internet and brought in far more than many Democrats thought was possible.

"If John Kerry had another month, who knows what he could have raised," said Gina Glantz, a Democratic strategist who managed Bill Bradley`s presidential campaign in 2000. "It might have been equal."

Mr. Bush relied heavily on his nationwide network of six-figure fund-raisers, known as pioneers and rangers, which was built in the 2000 election and greatly expanded for this year`s race.

Over all, Mr. Bush brought in almost $131 million, or roughly half his money, through major events, according to numbers supplied by the campaign.

Less talked about, but equally effective, was the campaign`s mail and phone solicitation programs, which brought in about $115 million.

The money allowed the campaign to continue raising money, even after Mr. Bush stopped doing major campaign events months ago in order to focus on raising money for the party.

The campaign far surpassed its stated goal of $170 million, as well as the previous record of more than $100 million, established by Mr. Bush during the 2000 primary campaign.

Mr. Bush collected money from more than one million contributors and from every state and county in the country, according to his campaign.

Now, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry are spending federal money and their campaigns are no longer raising donations. Instead, those duties have been turned over to the political parties.

Independent advocacy groups will continue to support both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush, spending tens of millions on television advertisements and to mobilize voters.

Both campaigns have directed their fund-raising networks to fill coffers of their parties` national committees, as well as state political parties that are responsible for registering and turning out voters in pivotal states around the country.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Es scheint für viele in D so, dass in den USA keinerlei Begrenzungen für Entwicklungen gegeben sind.
Es gibt auch in den USA die gleichen Entwicklungen und Bedenken wie in D, und Dämlichkeit eines Fan-Bob aus Wyoming ist dort eher die Ausnahme.
Nur wird in den USA vieles nicht durch Gesetze geregelt, sondern läuft über das Haftungarecht und fast jeder Unternehmer überlegt sich, ob die Schäden die entstehen können ihn nicht in den Ruin treiben werden. Jedenfalls in der Theorie.


[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
[Table align=center]
A test plot of the herbicide-resistant strain of creeping bentgrass last spring at the St. Louis Country Club.
[/TABLE]


September 21, 2004
Genes From Engineered Grass Spread for Miles, Study Finds
By ANDREW POLLACK

A new study shows that genes from genetically engineered grass can spread much farther than previously known, a finding that raises questions about the straying of other plants altered through biotechnology and that could hurt the efforts of two companies to win approval for the first bioengineered grass.

The two companies, Monsanto and Scotts, have developed a strain of creeping bentgrass for use on golf courses that is resistant to the widely used herbicide Roundup. The altered plants would allow groundskeepers to spray the herbicide on their greens and fairways to kill weeds while leaving the grass unscathed.

But the companies` plans have been opposed by some environmental groups as well as by the federal Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Critics worry that the grass could spread to areas where it is not wanted or transfer its herbicide resistance to weedy relatives, creating superweeds that would be immune to the most widely used weed killer. The Forest Service said earlier this year that the grass "has the potential to adversely impact all 175 national forests and grasslands."
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
Some scientists said the new results, to be published online this week by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, did not necessarily raise alarms about existing genetically modified crops like soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. There are special circumstances, they say, that make the creeping bentgrass more environmentally worrisome, like its extraordinarily light pollen.

Because Scotts has plans to develop other varieties of bioengineered grasses for use on household lawns, the new findings could have implications well beyond the golf course. And the study suggests that some previous studies of the environmental impact of genetically modified plants have been too small to capture the full spread of altered genes.

Scotts says that because naturally occurring bentgrass has not caused major weed problems, the bioengineered version would pose no new hazards. And any Roundup-resistant strains that might somehow develop outside of intentionally planted areas could be treated with other weed killers, the company said.

In the new study, scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency found that the genetically engineered bentgrass pollinated test plants of the same species as far away as they measured -about 13 miles downwind from a test farm in Oregon. Natural growths of wild grass of a different species were pollinated by the gene-modified grass nearly nine miles away.

Previous studies had measured pollination between various types of genetically modified plants and wild relatives at no more than about one mile, according to the paper.

"It`s the longest distance gene-flow study that I know of," said Norman C. Ellstrand, an expert on this subject at the University of California, Riverside, who was not involved in the study but read the paper.

"The gene really is essentially going to get out," he added. "What this study shows is it`s going to get out a lot faster and a lot further than people anticipated."

One reason the grass pollen was detected so far downwind was the size of the farm - 400 acres with thousands of plants. Most previous studies of gene flow have been done on far smaller fields, meaning there was less pollen and a lower chance that some would travel long distances. Those small studies, the new findings suggest, might not accurately reflect what would happen once a plant covers a large area.

"This is one of the first really realistic studies that has been done," said Joseph K. Wipff, an Oregon grass breeder. Dr. Wipff was not involved in the latest study but had conducted an earlier one that found pollen from genetically engineered grass traveling only about 1,400 feet. That test, though, used less than 300 plants covering one-tenth of an acre.

The effort to commercialize the bentgrass has attracted attention because it raises issues somewhat different from those surrounding the existing genetically modified crops.

It would be the first real use of genetic engineering in a suburban setting, for example, rather than on farms. And the grass is perennial, while corn, soybeans, cotton and canola are planted anew each year, making them easier to control.

Bentgrass can also cross-pollinate with at least 12 other species of grass, while the existing crops, except for canola, have no wild relatives in the places they are grown in the United States. And crops like corn and soybeans have trouble surviving off the farm, while grass can easily survive in the wild.

The bentgrass, moreover, besides having very light pollen - a cloud can be seen rising from grass farms - has very light seeds that disperse readily in the wind. It can also reproduce asexually using stems that creep along the ground and establish new roots, giving rise to its name.

Because of the environmental questions, the application for approval of the bioengineered bentgrass is encountering delays at the Department of Agriculture, which must decide whether to allow the plant to be commercialized.

After hearing public comments earlier this year, the department has now decided to produce a full environmental impact statement, which could take a year or more, according to Cindy Smith, who is in charge of biotech regulation.

Ms. Smith, in an interview yesterday, said the new study "gives some preliminary information that`s different from previous studies that we`re aware of." But more conclusive research is needed, she said.

Bentgrass is already widely used in its nonengineered form by golf course operators, mainly for greens but also for fairways and tee areas, in part because it is sturdy even when closely mown. It is rarely used on home lawns because it must be cared for intensively. And creeping bentgrass does not cross-pollinate with the types of grass typically used on lawns, scientists said.

Executives at Scotts, a major producer of lawn and turf products based in Marysville, Ohio, said the genetically engineered bentgrass would be sold only for golf courses. They said golf courses cut their grass so often that the pollen-producing part of the plants would never develop.

And because nonengineered creeping bentgrass has not caused weed problems despite being used on golf courses for decades, they said, the genetically modified version would pose no new problems.

"There has been pollen flow but it has not created weeds," Michael P. Kelty, the executive vice president and vice chairman of Scotts, said in an interview yesterday. He said Scotts and Monsanto, the world`s largest developer of genetically modified crops, had spent tens of millions of dollars since 1998 developing the bioengineered bentgrass.

The questions about the grass come after Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis, said earlier this year that it was dropping its effort to introduce the world`s first genetically engineered wheat, citing concerns by farmers that its use in foods might face market opposition.

Scotts is also developing genetically modified grass for home lawns, like herbicide-tolerant and slow-growing types that would need less mowing. But those products still need several more years of testing, Dr. Kelty said, adding that the company would avoid types of grass that could become weeds. "We don`t want to put a product out there that is going to be a threat," he said.

Scotts and Monsanto have received some support for their argument from the Weed Science Society of America, a professional group, which conducted a review of the weed tendencies of creeping bentgrass and its close relatives at the request of the Department of Agriculture.

"In the majority of the country these species have not presented themselves as a significant weed problem, historically," said Rob Hedberg, director of science policy for the society, summarizing the conclusions of the review. He said that because people have generally not tried to control bentgrass and similar species with Roundup, known generically as glyphosate, "the inability to control them with this herbicide is a less significant issue."

Still, the society`s report noted that bentgrass could be considered a weed by farms that are trying to grow other grass seeds. And the Forest Service, in comments to the Agriculture Department earlier this year, said that bentgrass has threatened to displace native species in some national forests.

John M. Randall, acting director of the Invasive Species Initiative at the Nature Conservancy, said bentgrass and related species had been a threat to native grasses in certain preserves that the group helps manage, including a couple near Montauk Point on eastern Long Island.

Other opponents of the genetically modified grass seized on the results. "This does confirm what a lot of people feared - expected, really," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. "These kinds of distances are eye-popping."

The new study was done by Lidia S. Watrud and colleagues at an E.P.A. research center in Corvallis, Ore., who were trying to develop new methods to assess gene flow, not specifically to study the bentgrass.

They put out 178 potted and unmodified creeping bentgrass plants, which they called sentinel plants, at various distances around the test farm. They also surveyed wild bentgrass and other grasses. They collected more than a million seeds from the plants, growing them into seedlings to test for herbicide resistance and doing genetic tests.

The number of seeds found to be genetically engineered was only 2 percent for the sentinel plants, 0.03 percent for wild creeping bentgrass and 0.04 percent for another wild grass. Most of those seeds were found in the first two miles or so, with the number dropping sharply after that. Still, said Anne Fairbrother, one of the authors of the report, finding even some cross pollination at 13 miles "is a paradigm shift in how far pollen might move."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 21, 2004
RECONSTRUCTION
Iraqis Warn U.S. Plan to Divert Billions to Security Could Cut Off Crucial Services
By JAMES GLANZ

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 20 - Iraqi officials in charge of rebuilding their country`s shattered and decrepit infrastructure are warning that the Bush administration`s plan to divert $3.46 billion from water, sewage, electricity and other reconstruction projects to security could leave many people without the crucial services that generally form the backbone of a stable and functioning democracy.

Under the plan, which was proposed last week and would require approval by Congress, the money would pay for training and equipping tens of thousands of additional police officers, border patrol agents and Iraqi national guardsmen in an attempt to restore order to a land where lawlessness and violence have replaced Saddam Hussein`s repression since the American-led invasion last year.

But the move comes as a grievous disappointment to Iraqi officials who had already seen the billions once promised them tied up for months by American regulations and planning committees, consumed by administrative overhead and set aside for the enormous costs of ensuring safety for the workers and engineers who will actually build the new sewers, water plants and electrical generators. Of the $18.4 billion that Congress approved last fall for Iraq`s reconstruction, only about $1 billion has been spent so far.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
"Nobody believes this will benefit Iraq," said Kamil N. Chadirji, deputy minister for administration and financial affairs in the Iraqi Ministry of Municipalities and Public Works, which has responsibility for water and sewage projects outside Baghdad.

"For a year we have been talking, with beautiful PowerPoint documents, but without a drop of water," Mr. Chadirji said, waving a colorful printout that he received from American officials.

The decision to shift the money, which had been earmarked for rebuilding everything from roads and bridges to telecommunications and the outdated equipment pumping oil, appears to signal an abandonment of the administration`s original plan for putting Iraq back on its feet as a functioning nation.

In the original view, restoring Iraq`s physical infrastructure assumed an importance equaled only by the American-led military action in creating a stable democratic country and winning the sympathies of ordinary citizens. Propounded again and again by L. Paul Bremer III, the top American civilian administrator here until an Iraqi government took over on June 28, that approach assumed that once the conduits for electricity, water, sewage, oil and information were in place, an efflorescence of industrial and national institutions would follow.

But with little actually being built and the deteriorating security situation making it doubtful that anything dramatic would happen if it were, a much more conventional set of nation-building priorities were put in place with the arrival last June of John D. Negroponte, the United States ambassador to Iraq. Those priorities are security, economic development and democracy building.

Somewhere implicit in the economic peg of this three-legged stool is the concept, much demoted, of physical reconstruction. And even then, said officials at the United States Embassy in Baghdad, the rebuilding is best done not by Americans but by Iraqis, who can not only hone their construction skills but also do the work more cheaply.

"It doesn`t matter what we build," a senior embassy official said in a succinct expression of the new principles. "In the end, it`s got to be an Iraqi solution."

"I feel a lot better about this mission than I did about `rebuilding Iraq,` `` the official said. When asked why, the official said, "Because this one makes sense."

William B. Taylor Jr., director of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office at the embassy, said the change represented something more akin to a shift in emphasis rather than a complete reordering of priorities.

"In the original allocation, the dollar winner, the sector that got the most resources, was electricity," Mr. Taylor said. "Now security is at the top."

He said some or all of the diverted financing could be restored if Congress decided to allocate more money to reconstruction in a future budget or if other countries provided donations.

The shift would take $1.07 billion out of the electricity sector`s original allocation of $5.54 billion. Dr. Moayed al-Maayouf, director general for studies and planning at the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity, said he was puzzled that nearly all the cuts in his sector would affect work at power plants - a technically difficult, long-term affair whose disruption would affect his planning for years.

Dr. Maayouf said he had not been consulted on the plan, but embassy officials said discussions might have occurred at higher levels in his ministry. In any case, even with the cuts, the ministry should be able to meet its goals for increasing electrical output over the next year, Dr. Maayouf said.

Clearly the most severe impact would be felt in the area of water and sewage, which would have its budget cut to $2.21 billion from $4.15 billion. With the insurgency in Iraq, the estimated cost of providing security for the projects had already tripled - from 10 percent to 30 percent of each construction contract - and had forced dozens of projects to shrink in size or be eliminated.

Now, Mahmood A. Ahmed, director general of water at the public works ministry, said that of an original list of about 100 projects, he knew of only four that are scheduled to start even in the next few months.

Mr. Chadirji, the deputy minister, said fewer than 30 of the original projects, which include municipal drinking water and sewage systems in towns across Iraq, were assured of surviving in the long run.

"We tell them, please, the problem is big, and let`s work faster," Mr. Ahmed said. "And we must have a result."

In another indication of new American priorities in Baghdad, some money was also shifted away from the major public works projects to small-scale initiatives in economic reform, private sector development, agriculture and higher education.

Mr. Taylor, in a bit of wry humor, explained why water and electricity were tapped for all these programs by citing Willie Sutton, who said that he robbed banks because that was where the money was.

"If you`re looking for $3.46 billion," Mr. Taylor said, "you can`t get it out of health care. Where the money is, is electricity and water."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 20, 2004
THE MILITARY
Effort to Train New Iraqi Army Is Facing Delays
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 - Three months into its new mission, the military command in charge of training and equipping Iraqi security forces has fewer than half of its permanent headquarters personnel in place, despite having one of the highest-priority roles in Iraq.

Only about 230 of the nearly 600 military personnel required by the headquarters, from lawyers to procurement experts, have been assigned jobs with the group, the Multinational Security Transition Command, military officials in Washington and Iraq said. One officer said the military`s Joint Staff had given the armed services until Oct. 15 to fill the remaining jobs, but other officials said those people might not actually be in place until weeks later.

The effect of the headquarters` shortages on the actual training of Iraqi forces is hard to measure, military officials and reconstruction specialists say. But at the least, the gaps mean fewer people to lobby Washington for resources, coordinate with Iraqi officials and get money and equipment into the hands of trainers around the country. Despite recent attacks on Iraqi security forces and their facilities, American officials say Iraqis in search of work are still signing up in large numbers.

Senior military officials in Washington and in the Persian Gulf region say the delay in filling the headquarters jobs stems from the Pentagon`s methodical - critics say plodding - approach to establishing a new organization with the extremely complex mission of preparing more than 250,000 members of the Iraqi police, border patrol, national guard and army units for duty.

"It takes time to build these new organizations and to man them," said one military official who has been briefed on the personnel requirements of the group`s commander, Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus. "The bureaucracy of the process is necessary but time consuming."

Frederick D. Barton, a senior adviser at the Center of Strategic and International Studies here and one of the authors of a new report that assesses Iraqi security and reconstruction measures, said, "The fact that Petraeus, who is really the poster boy for doing things quite well over there, is still building his team shows that this doesn`t have that urgency that you`ve got to have."

Mr. Barton, a former senior United Nations official overseeing refugee affairs, disclosed the shortfalls at a seminar here on Iraq last week, citing an American official in Iraq as the source of the information. Military officials in Washington and Iraq later confirmed the statistics.

Chronic personnel shortages in the headquarters of L. Paul Bremer III, the former senior American administrator of Iraq, and Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former American ground commander in the country, hampered their ability to oversee reconstruction and security missions, military officials said.

To ensure that training and equipping Iraqi forces continues apace, General Petraeus, one the Army`s most highly regarded officers, has gone to extraordinary lengths to borrow top lawyers, training experts and other specialists from the Pentagon, West Point, American commands worldwide and even from British forces in Iraq, to tide him over until his permanent staff arrives. He is also relying on civilian contractors, officials said.

General Petraeus`s efforts are deemed so important that Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, are personally monitoring the command`s staffing levels, and ensuring that it gets first-rate temporary help until permanent staff members arrive, military and Pentagon officials said. For example, one of General Myers`s top military lawyers is on loan to General Petraeus for six months.

But some lawmakers and reconstruction specialists have criticized the Pentagon`s approach, arguing that the train-and-equip mission in Iraq is too important and too urgent to be left to wend its way through the cumbersome military bureaucracy. Those officials say the Pentagon`s handling of the headquarters staffing matter reflects serious flaws in how the administration is tackling the increasingly difficult problem of providing security and stability in Iraq.

"This is a damn joke," Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee who met with American commanders in Iraq in late June, said in a telephone interview. "Petraeus and the military guys aren`t the problem. They know what they need. But there`s no sense of urgency in this administration."

Pentagon and State Department officials deny that accusation and insist that training and equipping Iraqi forces to assume more and more responsibility for their country`s security is a top priority for the administration and necessary before the 140,000 American forces in Iraq can begin withdrawing.

These officials say the training of Iraqi forces is moving ahead well. "We`re making good progress," Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld told soldiers last week at Fort Campbell, Ky. "They`ve had some bad setbacks when they weren`t fully trained or fully equipped. But for the most part, they are doing a darned good job as their chain of command system is developed."

But on Sunday, four Senate Republicans - Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; John McCain of Arizona; and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina - criticized the administration for the problems facing American troops in Iraq.

"We`re in trouble, we`re in deep trouble in Iraq," Mr. Hagel said on the CBS News program "Face the Nation."

The training of Iraqi security forces has become a central issue ahead of the Iraqi election, scheduled for January, and the American election in November. Mr. Rumsfeld and General Myers said earlier this month that the American strategy to retake rebel-held strongholds in Iraq, especially in the so-called Sunni triangle north and west of Baghdad, would rely on training and equipping enough Iraqis to take a lead role.

But General Myers said the Iraqis would not be ready until the end of the year to join American forces in any assault against the rebel havens and then keep the peace afterward. Some administration officials express concern that if significant parts of the Sunni areas cannot be secured by January, it may be impossible to hold a nationwide election that would be seen as legitimate.

The administration said last week that it would shift $1.8 billion from reconstruction projects to law enforcement and security, principally to train and equip an additional 80,000 police officers, border guards and soldiers, and build facilities for them.

As violence increases across Iraq, military officials here report growing tensions between Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and General Petraeus.

Dr. Allawi wants more Iraqi security forces and wants them more quickly, but General Petraeus, mindful of the Iraqis` woeful performance in April against an insurgents in Falluja and Najaf, wants to give them more training before they hit the streets. So far, General Petraeus`s view has prevailed, officials said.

Dr. Allawi is said to be eager to get Iraqi troops into battle, and at a recent tour of the American-sponsored training facilities near Baghdad International Airport, he watched as Iraqi recruits drilled.

Evidently pleased, Dr. Allawi told the recruits that their work was just beginning. "There will be battles coming, and we will destroy the enemy," he told the Iraqi soldiers standing before him. "Whatever you need, let me know."

General Petraeus, who commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, assumed his new job in June. He works closely with the Iraqi Defense and Interior Ministries, as well as with the American commanders whose troops are conducting much of the training.

Last week, the Army Reserve announced that 800 soldiers from the 98th Division, based in Rochester, N.Y., would be sent to Iraq during the next nine weeks to assume a lead training role. It will be the unit`s first overseas deployment since World War II.

General Petraeus inherited a smaller organization when he took over, and he has had to build a broader headquarters largely from scratch. Troops with particular specialties were identified for yearlong tours, and in some cases activated from the Reserve or National Guard.

Commanders in Iraq say General Petraeus`s headquarters has provided crucial help in cutting through bureaucratic delays. "They were very helpful in getting us a battalion set of equipment that in the past would have taken much longer to get," Col. Michael Rounds, who commands the Army`s Stryker brigade in northern Iraq, said in a telephone interview from Mosul.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi security forces are growing steadily. As late as this summer, Mr. Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials frequently boasted that the Iraqi ranks had swelled to more than 200,000. Since early August, however, Mr. Rumsfeld has been careful to note that only about half of those forces are sufficiently trained and equipped.

American officials and commanders praised the performance of the Iraqi commando battalion, counterterrorist force and two so-called interventional battalions that fought last month in Najaf against loyalists to the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

"Their capabilities are still uneven, but they`re improving as we arm and equip them better, improve their infrastructure, give them additional training, and help them weed out the weak leaders," one American general said. "Nothing`s quick in Iraq and nothing`s easy."

Dexter Filkins contributed reporting from Baghdad for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 21, 2004
Talking Sense, at Last, on Iraq

After weeks of politically damaging delay, John Kerry finally seems to have found his voice on what ought to be the central issue of this year`s election: the mismanaged war in Iraq and how to bring it to an acceptable conclusion. It was none too soon. While the fate of the Iraqi people, the success of the war on terrorism and America`s international standing have all been teetering ominously in the balance, Mr. Kerry has allowed the presidential campaign to veer off into squabbles about events long past - like the candidates` 30-year-old war records - and about Mr. Kerry`s confusing and sometimes contradictory recent statements on foreign policy.

Speaking in New York yesterday, Mr. Kerry laid out a well-grounded, intellectually straightforward and powerful critique of the Bush administration`s past mistakes in Iraq. He gave a coherent explanation for his vote two years ago to authorize President Bush to use military force, making a clear distinction between how the White House should have used that authority to maximize international pressure against Saddam Hussein and the self-isolating course it actually followed. And, for the first time since becoming a presidential nominee, he explicitly said that he would never have supported the invasion of an Iraq that did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

Even more important, he linked his criticisms to a set of alternative policies, which, while not entirely new to those who have closely followed his campaign statements, offer the best chance for retrieving a situation that daily grows more dangerous for Iraqis, Americans and a volatile region. As Mr. Kerry correctly noted, "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

This should signal the start of the kind of serious and useful debate the American people deserve. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush still declines to even acknowledge the disastrous condition the war has fallen into, preferring simply to assert over and over that the course there is now firmly set for a democratic and stable future. Democrats who question these Pollyannaish projections are almost instantly slapped down as unpatriotic underminers of military morale.

That was the president`s reflexive response to Mr. Kerry yesterday, coupled with the preposterous claim that Mr. Kerry`s plan for a much more broadly internationalized effort is no different from the administration`s own American-fought, American-paid-for and American-directed approach. It is encouraging to see that Republican foreign policy heavyweights like Senators Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar and John McCain are now also asking tough questions about the way the war is going. It is surely no service to America`s brave fighting men and women, who know firsthand what they are facing, for Mr. Bush to pretend otherwise and to refuse to consider policy changes that might help them prevail and come home.

Turning things around at this late date will not be easy, but the president could make a beginning today, when he addresses an audience of world leaders at the United Nations. Mr. Kerry set the stage when he urged Mr. Bush to convene a summit meeting of those leaders to build a truly international effort to protect the elections, train Iraqi security forces and create a broader-based, more effective reconstruction effort.

Perhaps the presidential campaign is finally under way.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Brooks ist Mitherausgeber des `Weekly Standard` und steht auf der Con-Seite.

September 21, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Finally, Kerry Takes a Stand
By DAVID BROOKS

Yesterday John Kerry came to New York University and did something amazing. He uttered a series of clear, declarative sentences on the subject of Iraq. Many of these sentences directly contradict his past statements on Iraq, but at least you could figure out what he was trying to say.

First, Kerry argued that Iraq was never a serious threat to the United States, that the war was never justified and that Bush`s focus on Iraq was a "profound diversion" from the real enemy, Osama bin Laden.

Second, Kerry argued that we are losing the war in Iraq. Casualties are mounting, the insurgency is spreading, and daily life is more miserable.

Third, Kerry argued that in times like this, brave leaders should tell the truth to the American people. Kerry reminded his audience that during Vietnam, he returned home "to offer my own personal voice of dissent," and he`s decided to do the same thing now. The parallel is clear: Iraq is the new Vietnam.

Finally, Kerry declared that it is time to get out, beginning next summer. The message is that if Kerry is elected, the entire momentum of U.S. policy will be toward getting American troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible and shifting responsibility for Iraq onto other countries.

The crucial passage in the speech was this one: "The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: we must make Iraq the world`s responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden." From a U.S. responsibility, Iraq will become the world`s responsibility.

Kerry said the United Nations must play a central role in supervising elections. He said other nations should come in to protect U.N. officials. He called for an international summit meeting this week in New York, where other nations could commit troops and money to Iraq. He said NATO should open training centers for new Iraqi soldiers.

He talked about what other nations could do to help address the situation in Iraq. He did not say what the U.S. should do to defeat the insurgents and stabilize and rebuild Iraq, beyond what Bush is already doing. He did not say the U.S. could fight the insurgents more effectively. He did not have any ideas on how to tame Falluja or handle Moktada al-Sadr. He did not offer any strategy for victory.

But he did, more than at any time in the past year, stake out a clear contrast with Bush.

The president`s case is that the world is safer with Saddam out of power, and that we should stay as long as it takes to help Iraqis move to democracy. Kerry`s case is that the world would be safer if we`d left Saddam; his emphasis is on untangling the United States from Iraq and shifting attention to more serious threats.

Rhetorically, this was his best foreign policy speech by far (it helps to pick a side). Politically, it was risky. Kerry`s new liberal tilt makes him more forceful on the stump, but opens huge vulnerabilities. Does he really want to imply that 1,000 troops died for nothing?

By picking the withdrawal camp, he has assigned himself a clear task. Right now 54 percent of likely voters believe that the U.S. should stay as long as it takes to rebuild Iraq, while 39 percent believe that we should leave as soon as possible. Between now and Nov. 2, Kerry must flip those numbers.

Substantively, of course, Kerry`s speech is completely irresponsible. In the first place, there is a 99 percent chance that other nations will not contribute enough troops to significantly decrease the U.S. burden in Iraq. In that case, John Kerry has no Iraq policy. The promise to bring some troops home by summer will be exposed as a Disneyesque fantasy.

More to the point, Kerry is trying to use multilateralism as a gloss for retreat. If "the world" is going to be responsible for defeating Moktada al-Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then no one will be responsible for defeating them. The consequences for the people of Iraq and the region will be horrific.

Finally, if the whole war is a mistake, shouldn`t we stop fighting tomorrow? What do you say to the last man to die for a "profound diversion"?

But that is what the next few weeks are going to be about. This country has long needed to have a straight up-or-down debate on the war. Now that Kerry has positioned himself as the antiwar candidate, it can.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 21, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Last Deception
By PAUL KRUGMAN

It`s Ayad Allawi week. President Bush, starting with his address at the U.N. today, will try to present Mr. Allawi - a former Baathist who the BBC reports was chosen as prime minister because he was "equally mistrusted by everyone" - as the leader of a sovereign nation on the path to democracy. If the media play along, Mr. Bush may be able to keep the Iraq disaster under wraps for a few more weeks.

It may well work. In June, when the United States formally transferred sovereignty to Mr. Allawi`s government, the media acted as if this empty gesture marked the end of the war. Even though American casualties continued to rise, stories about Iraq dropped off the evening news and the front pages. This gave the public the impression that things were improving and helped Mr. Bush recover in the polls.

Now Mr. Bush hopes that by pretending that Mr. Allawi is a real leader of a real government, he can conceal the fact that he has led America into a major strategic defeat.

That`s a stark statement, but it`s a view shared by almost all independent military and intelligence experts. Put it this way: it`s hard to identify any major urban areas outside Kurdistan where the U.S. and its allies exercise effective control. Insurgents operate freely, even in the heart of Baghdad, while coalition forces, however many battles they win, rule only whatever ground they happen to stand on. And efforts to put an Iraqi face on the occupation are self-defeating: as the example of Mr. Allawi shows, any leader who is too closely associated with America becomes tainted in the eyes of the Iraqi public.

Mr. Bush`s insistence that he is nonetheless "pleased with the progress" in Iraq - when his own National Intelligence Estimate echoes the grim views of independent experts - would be funny if the reality weren`t so grim. Unfortunately, this is no joke: to the delight of Al Qaeda, America`s overstretched armed forces are gradually getting chewed up in a losing struggle.

So what`s the answer?

The Bush administration fostered the Iraq insurgency by botching the essential tasks of enlisting allies, rebuilding infrastructure, training and equipping local security forces, and preparing for elections. It`s understandable, then, that John Kerry - whose speech yesterday was deadly accurate in its description of Mr. Bush`s mistakes - proposes going back and doing the job right.

But I hope that Mr. Kerry won`t allow himself to be trapped into trying to fulfill neocon fantasies. If there ever was a chance to turn Iraq into a pro-American beacon of democracy, that chance perished a long time ago.

Can the insurgency be crushed? It`s widely believed that in November, a few days after the election, the Bush administration will launch an all-out offensive against insurgent-controlled areas. Such an offensive will, for all practical purposes, be an attempt to conquer Iraq all over again. But unlike Saddam`s hapless commanders, the insurgents won`t oblige us by taking up positions in the countryside, where they can be blasted by U.S. air power. And grinding urban warfare that leads to heavy American casualties and the death of large numbers of innocent civilians will simply enlarge the ranks of our enemies.

But if the chance to install a pro-American government has been lost, what`s the alternative? Scaling back our aims. This means accepting the fact that an Iraqi leader, to have legitimacy, must be able to deliver an end to America`s military presence. Unless we want this war to go on forever, we will have to abandon the 14 "enduring bases" the Bush administration has been building.

It also means accepting the likelihood that Iraq will not have a strong central government - and that local leaders will end up with a lot of autonomy. This doesn`t have to mean creating havens for hostile forces: remember that for a year after Saddam`s fall, moderate Shiite clerics effectively governed large areas of Iraq and kept them relatively peaceful. It was the continuing irritant of the U.S. occupation that empowered radicals like Moktada al-Sadr.

The point is that by winding down America`s military presence, while promising aid to those who don`t harbor anti-American terrorists and retaliation against those who do, the U.S. can probably leave behind an Iraq that isn`t an American ally, but isn`t a threat either. And that, at this point, is probably the best we can hope for.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Kerrys Rede in der Universität von New York im Wortlaut, weil die Rede doch für Aufsehen sorgt.

washingtonpost.com
Text: Kerry Lays Out Iraq Plan


eMediaMillWorks
Monday, September 20, 2004; 12:10 PM

Following is the text of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry`s speech delivered in New York.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS) KERRY: I am really honored to be here at New York University, at NYU Wagner, one of the great urban universities in America. Not just in New York, but in the world. You`ve set a high standard, you always set a high standard for global dialogue, as Ellen (ph) mentioned a moment ago. And I intend to live up to that tradition here today. This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America, at home and around the world. A president`s first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.

(APPLAUSE)

Only a few blocks from here, three years ago, the events of September 11th remind every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism.

With us today is a remarkable group of women who lost loved ones on September 11th, and whose support I am honored to have. Not only did they suffer unbearable loss, but they helped us as a nation to learn the lessons of that terrible time by insisting on the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

(APPLAUSE)

I ask them to stand, and I thank them on behalf of our country, and I pledge to them, and to you, that I will implement the 9/11 recommendations. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

In fighting the war on terrorism my principles are straightforward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies.

But billions of people around the world, yearning for a better life, are open to America`s ideals. We must reach them.

(APPLAUSE)

To win, America must be strong and America must be smart.

The greatest threat that we face is the possibility of Al Qaida or other terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. To prevent that from happening we have to call on the totality of America`s strength: strong alliances to help us stop the world`s most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands; a powerful military, transformed to meet the threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction; and all of America`s power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, our appeal to the values, the values of Americans, and to connect them to the values of other people around the world -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and to preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made, and the choices I would make and have made, to fight and win the war on terror.

That means that we must have a great and honest debate on Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and from our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.

Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains overwhelmingly an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops and nearly 90 percent of the casualties are American.

Despite the president`s claims, this is not a grand coalition.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery and skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. I visited with some of them in the hospitals and I am stunned by their commitment, by their sense of duty, their patriotism. When I speak to them, when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: We owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.

(APPLAUSE)

Would you all join me? My wife Teresa has made it through the traffic, and I`m delighted that she is here. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

In June, the president declared, The Iraqi people have their country back. And just last week he told us, This country is headed toward democracy; freedom is on the march. But the administration`s own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people and so do the facts on the ground.

Security is deteriorating for us and for the Iraqis. Forty-two Americans died in Iraq in June, the month before the handover. But 54 died in July, 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September. And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August; more than in any other month since the invasion.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever-widening war zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times; a 400 percent increase.

Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra and parts of Iraq are now no-go zones, breeding grounds for terrorists, who are free to plot and to launch attacks against our soldiers.

The radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in suburbs of Baghdad than the prime minister.

Violence against Iraqis, from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation, is on the rise.

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Yes, there has been some progress. Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq, schools, shops and hospitals have been opened in certain places. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to be able to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they`re sitting on the fence, instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth, the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and to the American people.

Now, I will say to you, it is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it is essential if you want to correct the course and do what`s right for those troops, instead of repeating the same old mistakes over and over again.

I know this dilemma firsthand. I saw firsthand what happens when pride or arrogance take over from rational decision-making. And after serving in a war, I returned home to offer my own personal views of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. And we still do.

(APPLAUSE)

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in Hell. But that was not -- that was not, in and of itself, a reason to go to war.

(APPLAUSE)

The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, the president has said that he miscalculated in Iraq, and that it was a catastrophic success. MORE

(APPLAUSE)

The first and most fundamental mistake was the president`s failure to tell the truth to the American people.

(APPLAUSE)

He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war, and he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

(APPLAUSE)

His two main rationales, weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaida-September 11th connection, have both been proved false by the president`s own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission.

And just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged those facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the Earth is flat.

(APPLAUSE)

The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq. He didn`t tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed for years, not months. He didn`t tell us that he wouldn`t take the time to assemble a genuine, broad, strong coalition of allies. He didn`t tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn`t tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.

And America will pay an even heavier price for the president`s lack of candor.

At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.

In the dark days of the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos as proof. De Gaulle waved him away, saying, The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.

How many world leaders have that same trust in America`s president today? This president`s failure to tell the truth to us and to the world before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.

The president now admits to miscalculations in Iraq. Miscalculations: This is one of the greatest underestimates in recent American history.

(APPLAUSE)

His miscalculations were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment, and judgment is what we look for a president.

(APPLAUSE)

And this is all the more stunning, because we`re not talking about 20/20 hindsight, we`re not talking about Monday morning quarterbacking. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bipartisan congressional hearings, major outside studies and even some in his own administration, predicted virtually every problem that we face in Iraq today.

The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible and real consequences.

The administration told us we would be greeted as liberators; they were wrong. They told us not to worry about the looting or the sorry state of Iraq`s infrastructure; they were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots; they were tragically wrong.

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy; they were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country, and a police force and an army to secure it; they were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently overpromised and underperformed. And this policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, by an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence.

(APPLAUSE)

And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials -- the only officials who`ve lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said it would cost as much as $200 billion. Pretty good calculation. He was fired.

After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the U.N., and he rejected it, stiff-armed them, decided to go it alone. He even prohibited nations from participating in reconstruction efforts because they weren`t part of the original coalition, pushing reluctant countries even further away. And as we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision really was.

Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes America stronger in the war on terrorism?

AUDIENCE: No!

KERRY: By any measure, by any measure, the answer is no.

Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all-time low.

Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were and where we are.

After the events of September 11th, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in a legitimate struggle against terrorists. On September 12th, headlines and newspapers abroad declared that, We are all Americans now.

But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and, rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.

(APPLAUSE)

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and posed no imminent threat to our security.

The president`s policy in Iraq took our attention and our resources away from other more serious threats to America, threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more right now under this president`s watch; the emerging nuclear danger of Iran; the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia; and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all-time high and the Al Qaida leadership still plots and plans, not only there, but in 60 other nations.

Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on warlords, who one week earlier had been fighting on the other side, to go up in the mountains to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered. He slipped away.

We then diverted our focus and our forces from the hunt for those who were responsible for September 11th in order to invade Iraq.

We know now that Iraq played no part. We knew then on September 11th. And it had no operational ties to Al Qaida.

The president`s policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem that he said he was trying to prevent.

Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before their war; now it is, and they are operating against our troops.

Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who could someday hit the United States of America.

And we know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.

The president`s policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into freefall.

Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries, like Jordan, Morocco and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president, would have needed that threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.

(APPLAUSE)

The power entrusted to the president purposefully gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple: We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam, disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation, If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.

Instead, the president rushed to war, without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went purposefully, by choice, without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted by choice, without making sure that our troops even had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead by choice, without understanding or preparing for the consequences of postwar. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again the same way.

How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying to America that if we know there was no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq?

My answer: resoundingly, no, because a commander in chief`s first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

(APPLAUSE)

Now the president is looking for a reason, a new reason to hang his hat on -- it`s the capability to acquire weapons.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, that was not the reason given to the nation, that was not the reason the Congress voted on. That is not a reason today; it is an excuse.

KERRY: Thirty-five to 40 countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade all of them?

I would have personally concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing Osama bin Laden.

(APPLAUSE)

I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or to America.

The president`s insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new, smarter direction with John Kerry that makes our troops and America safer. That`s the choice.

(APPLAUSE)

It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself.

In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot just throw up our hands, we cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America`s security for years to come.

All across this country, people ask me and others, what we should do now every stop of the way. From the first time I spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out a specific set of recommendations from day one, from the first debate until this moment. I have set out specific steps of how we should not and how we should proceed.

But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.

Five months ago in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq, harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago, a year and a half ago.

It`s time to recognize what is and what is not happening in Iraq today and we must act with urgency.

Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said that, We`re in deep trouble in Iraq. It doesn`t add up to a pretty picture, he said, and we`re going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy.

Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.

First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don`t have to go it alone.

Last spring, after too many months of delay, after reluctance to take the advice of so many of us, the president finally went back to the U.N., and it passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do, but it was late.

That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq`s security forces and a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, and more financial assistance and real debt relief.

But guess what? Three months later, not a single country has answered that call, and the president acts as if it doesn`t matter.

And of the 13 billion that was previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.

The president should convene a summit meeting of the world`s major powers and of Iraq`s neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly, and he should insist that they make good on the U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific but critical roles in training Iraqi security personnel and in securing Iraqi borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq`s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq`s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, is this more difficult today? You bet it is. It`s more difficult today because the president hasn`t been doing it from the beginning. And I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning.

Delay has only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and the confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq.

But I`ll tell you, we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to be successful in the end.

(APPLAUSE) Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that -- claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. This is the public statement to America.

Well, guess what, America? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth.

For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained by the administration`s own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one -- not one has completed a 24-week field training program.

Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can`t stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The president should urgently expand the security forces` training program inside and outside of Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double the classroom training time, require the follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries.

And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers and start behaving like we really are at war.

(APPLAUSE)

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people, all of which, may I say, should have been in the plan and immediately launched with such a ferocity that there was no doubt about America`s commitment or capacity in the very first moments afterwards. But they didn`t plan.

He ignored his own State Department`s plan, he discarded it.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise the spending priorities in Iraq. It took them 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

(APPLAUSE)

One year ago, this administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we have to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability, and now we`re paying the price for not doing that.

He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers instead of big corporations like Halliburton.

(APPLAUSE)

In fact, he should stop paying companies under fraud investigation or corruption investigation. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon who are responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

(APPLAUSE)

Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee that the promised election can be held next year. Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly that could write a constitution and yields a viable power-sharing agreement.

Because Iraqis have no experience in holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role, yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. secretary general and administration officials say elections are in grave doubt, because the security situation is so bad, and because not a single country has yet offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission.

The president needs to tell the truth. The president needs to deal with reality, and he should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force.

Now, this is not going to be easy. I understand that.

Again, I repeat, every month that`s gone by, every offer of help spurned, every alternative not taken for these past months has made this more difficult and those were this president`s choices. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq ought to still be prepared to help the United Nations hold an election.

We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S. forces will end up bearing that burden alone.

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year, if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years.

That can achieved.

(APPLAUSE)

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do if I were president today. But we can`t afford to wait until January and I can`t tell you what I will find in Iraq on January 20th.

President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear. We must make Iraq the world`s responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should have always been bearing the burden.

That`s the right way to get the job done. It always was the right way to get the job done to minimize the risk to American troops and the cost to American taxpayers. And it is the right way to get our troops home.

On May 1st of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now- infamous banner that read Mission accomplished. He declared to the American people that, In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come.

The president misled, miscalculated and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government -- far harder to achieve than it ever should have been.

(APPLAUSE)

In Iraq, this administration`s record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment, presidential judgment, of historic proportions.

At every critical juncture in Iraq and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice.

I have a plan to make America stronger.

The president often says that in a post-9/11 world we can`t hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting.

(APPLAUSE)

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do and I have all along.

George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war on terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror that actually makes America safer.

Today, because of George Bush`s policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans; just ask anyone who travels.

If you share my conviction that we cannot go on as we are, that we can make America stronger and safer than it is, then November 2nd is your chance to speak and to be heard.

It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.

(APPLAUSE)

I am convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start, move more effectively to accomplish our goals.

Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, for America`s sake, we have to get this right. We have to do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

Thank you, God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

© 2004 E-Media

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
What Is Bush Hiding?

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004; Page A21

It is to be welcomed that President Bush wants to clear up questions about his National Guard service. He wants more details out there, and good for him. This story should be laid to rest, and the one person who can do it is named George W. Bush.

Up to now, Bush has been interested in a rather narrow aspect of the story. He wanted Dan Rather and CBS News to come clean about whether they used fake documents in reporting on the president`s Guard service back in the 1970s.

"There are a lot of questions and they need to be answered," Bush told the Union Leader in Manchester, N.H., last week. "I think what needs to happen is people need to take a look at the documents, how they were created, and let the truth come out."

I couldn`t agree more. And apparently CBS came to the same view. CBS messed up, and yesterday, Rather fessed up. He said the network could no longer stand behind the documents. There will be much hand-wringing about the media in the coming days, and properly so.

But what`s good for Dan Rather, who is not running for president, ought to be good for George Bush, who is. "There are a lot of questions and they need to be answered." Surely that presidential sentiment applies as much to Bush`s Guard service as to Rather`s journalistic methods.

The New York Times put the relevant questions on the table yesterday in a lengthy review of Bush`s life in 1972, "the year George W. Bush dropped off the radar screen," as the Times called it. The issues about Bush`s National Guard service, the Times wrote, include "why he failed to take his pilot`s physical and whether he fulfilled his commitment to the guard."

Oh, I can hear the groaning: "But why are we still talking about Vietnam?" A fair question that has several compelling answers.

First, except for John McCain, Republicans were conspicuously happy to have a front group spread untruths about John Kerry`s Vietnam service in August and watch as the misleading claims were amplified by the supposedly liberal media. The Vietnam era was relevant as long as it could be used to raise character questions about Kerry. But as soon as the questioning turned to Bush`s character, we were supposed to call the whole thing off. Why? Because the media were supposed to question Kerry`s character but not Bush`s.

And, please, none of this nonsense about how Kerry "opened the door" to the assault on his Vietnam years by highlighting his service at the Democratic National Convention. Nothing any candidate does should ever be seen as "opening the door" to lies about his past. Besides, Vietnam veterans with Republican ties were going after Kerry`s war record long before the Democratic convention.

But, most important, there is only one reason the story about Bush`s choices during the Vietnam years persists. It`s because the president won`t give detailed answers to the direct questions posed by the Times story and other responsible media organizations, including the Boston Globe. Their questions never depended on the discredited CBS documents.

Bush could end this story now so we could get to the real issues of 2004. It would require only that the president take an hour or so with reporters to make clear what he did and did not do in the Guard. He may have had good reasons for ducking that physical exam. Surely he can explain the gaps in his service and tell us honestly whether any pull was used to get him into the Guard.

But a guy who is supposed to be so frank and direct turns remarkably Clintonian where the National Guard issue is concerned. "I met my requirements and was honorably discharged" is Bush`s stock answer, which does old Bill proud. And am I the only person exasperated by a double standard that treated everything Bill Clinton ever did in his life ("I didn`t inhale") as fair game but now insists that we shouldn`t sully ourselves with any inconvenient questions about Bush`s past?

I`m as weary as you are that our politics veer away from what matters -- Iraq, terrorism, health care, jobs -- and get sidetracked into personal issues manufactured by political consultants and ideological zealots. But the Bush campaign has made clear it wants this election to focus on character and leadership. If character is the issue, the president`s life, past and present, matters just as much as John Kerry`s.

Dan Rather has answered his critics. Now it is Bush`s turn.

[e-mail]

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Coming Clean About This War

By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, September 21, 2004; Page A21

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" a young John Kerry asked back in 1971 about the war in Vietnam. Now it is all these years later and a different war is starting to look more and more like the one Kerry came to question.

Maybe it`s time someone asked Kerry`s question about the war in Iraq. I say "someone," because if John Kerry did so it would be tantamount to conceding the election. He would instantly undergo the sort of slimy attack on his patriotism that John Thune (rhymes with goon) visited on Tom Daschle, saying the Senate minority leader`s criticism of President Bush on the eve of the Iraq war emboldened the enemy. How Thune, Daschle`s opponent in the Senate race, restrained himself from saying Daschle had besmirched the memory of the fallen by saying they had died in vain is beyond me. That is the low blow that has yet to land.

Fear of such an accusation is what once muted Kerry`s criticism of the war, which has gotten progressively tougher and might have reached critical mass -- not to mention a level of long-awaited indignation -- with yesterday`s speech in New York. The fact remains that this war, regardless of its origins in fear and myth, has been incompetently managed by the Bush administration, which is to say George Walker Bush. It is he -- not any critic of the war -- who has wasted lives in Iraq.

At one time I would have ruled out anything less than what might be called a U.S. victory in Iraq -- a secure nation governed by democratically elected rulers. I would have argued that no matter how the United States got into Iraq, it simply could not preemptively pull out. To do so would have great and grave consequences. It could plunge the country into civil war, Shiites against Sunnis and Kurds against them both. It would cause the country to disintegrate, maybe dividing into thirds -- a Kurdish north, a Sunni center and a Shiite south. Where things are not so ethnically neat, expect a bloodbath -- and expect outsiders to join in.

Now, though, we all have to face the prospect that Iraq will end up a mess no matter what. The administration`s own national intelligence estimate raises the possibility that civil war may erupt by the end of next year. That`s the direst prediction, but it now seems more likely than the one President Bush once envisioned: an Iraq with some sort of Jeffersonian democracy. That ain`t about to happen and bit by bit, Bush has been scaling back his rhetoric. The truth is that we`d now settle for a pro-American strongman such as Pakistan`s Pervez Musharraf or Egypt`s Hosni Mubarak. Both countries are essentially military dictatorships.

Who`d like to be the last man to die for that? I`m looking for a show of hands. But more than that, I`m looking for someone to raise questions that go to the heart of this matter of life and death. In this sense, Iraq is fast becoming Vietnam -- only the stakes are higher. (Vietnam had no oil.) It is also Vietnam in the way the presidential campaign is handling it. Once again the GOP is playing the odious patriotism card to silence dissent. As for Bush, he talks about Iraq with the same loopy unreality as he does his National Guard service. He`s a fabulist.

I still don`t think the United States can just pull out of Iraq. But I do think the option is worth discussing. Would the threat of a U.S. pullout concentrate the minds of Iraqis so that they take control of their own destinies? Would the loss of the Yankee enemy cause Iraqis to blame actual bombers for the bombing -- and not the United States? Would a threatened U.S. withdrawal get the attention of NATO, not to mention neighboring Middle Eastern countries? Do they want Iraq in shambles? I doubt it.

Bush ought to come clean. What are his goals for Iraq now? Does he plan to bring in more troops if he wins in November or is he simply going to accept defeat, call it victory and bring the boys (and girls) home? If I were still in the uniform I once wore, I`d sure like to know. It`s terrible to die for a mistake. It`s even worse to die for a lie.

[e-mail]

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

The IAEA, its statute says, should assist "the supplying of materials, equipment, or facilities" to non-nuclear states. It should train nuclear scientists and "foster the exchange of scientific and technical information". Its mission, in other words, is to prevent the development of nuclear weapons, while spreading nuclear technology to as many countries as possible. It is also responsible for enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which has the same dual purpose. Das ist das gr0ße Problem, der Iran hat einen Anspruch darauf, die Atomenergie zu nutzen und kann sogar von der IAEA Hilfe erwarten. Es ist nicht des Irans Problem, wenn manche Dinge beidseitig nutzbar sind für friedlichen Gebrauch und für die Bombe.



Proliferation treaty

Of course Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons - and has the legal entitlement to do so
George Monbiot
Tuesday September 21, 2004

The Guardian
Poor Mr Baradei,
His mission is a parody:
He tells the states (with some aplomb)
They can and cannot have the bomb

Here is the world`s most nonsensical job description. Your duty is to work tirelessly to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And to work tirelessly to encourage the proliferation of the means of building them. This is the task of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei.

He is an able diplomat, and as bold as his predecessor, Hans Blix, in standing up to the global powers. But what he is obliged to take away with one hand, he is obliged to give with the other. His message to the non-nuclear powers is this: you are not allowed to develop the bomb, but we will give you the materials and expertise with which you can build one. It is this mortal contradiction which permitted the government of Iran this weekend to tell him to bog off.

His agency`s motto - "Atoms for Peace" - wasn`t always a lie. In 1953, when Eisenhower founded it with his famous speech to the United Nations, people really seemed to believe that nuclear fission could solve the world`s problems. An article in the Herald Tribune, for example, promised that atomic power would create "an earthly paradise... Our automobiles eventually will have atomic energy units built into them at the factory so that we will never have to refuel them... In a relatively short time we will cease to mine coal."

Eisenhower seemed convinced that the nuclear sword could be beaten into the nuclear ploughshare. "It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace." The nuclear powers, he said, "should... make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials" which should then be given to "the power-starved areas of the world", "to provide abundant electrical energy". This would give them, he argued, the necessary incentive to forswear the use of nuclear weapons.

The IAEA, its statute says, should assist "the supplying of materials, equipment, or facilities" to non-nuclear states. It should train nuclear scientists and "foster the exchange of scientific and technical information". Its mission, in other words, is to prevent the development of nuclear weapons, while spreading nuclear technology to as many countries as possible. It is also responsible for enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which has the same dual purpose.

There might have been a case, while Eisenhower`s dream could still be dreamt. But to persist with this programme long after it became clear that it caused proliferation, not containment, suggests that the global powers are living in a world of make-believe. The International Atomic Energy Agency has put nuclear technology "into the hands of those who will know how to strip its civilian casing and adapt it to the arts of war".

It`s not difficult. Every state which has sought to develop a nuclear weapons programme over the past 30 years - Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iraq - has done so by diverting resources from its nuclear power programme. In some cases they built their weapons with the direct assistance of Atoms for Peace.

India developed its bomb with the help of fissionable material and expertise from Canada, the US, Germany, France, Norway and the UK. Pakistan was able to answer the threat with the help of Canada, the US, Germany, France, Belgium, China and the UK. In the name of peace, we equipped these nations for total war.

Now there are about 20 countries which, as a result of foreign help for their civilian nuclear programmes, could, if they choose, become nuclear weapons states within months. When Russia shipped uranium and the technologies required to build a bomb to Iran, it not only had a right to do so: under the non-proliferation treaty, it had a duty to do so.

It`s not yet clear whether Iran has stepped over the brink. It is plainly enriching uranium and producing heavy water, which could enable it to build both uranium- and plutonium-based bombs. But both processes are also legitimate means of developing materials for nuclear power generation. To enrich uranium from power-grade to bomb-grade you need only pass it through the centrifuges a few more times. The non-proliferation treaty gives Iran both the right to own the materials and the cover it requires to use them for a weapons programme. If you want to build a bomb, you simply sign the treaties, join the IAEA, then use your entitlements to do what they were designed to prevent.

Iran certainly has plenty of motives for seeking to become a nuclear power. Israel has enough nuclear weapons to wipe it off the map. Sheltered by the US, it has no incentive to dismantle them and sign the non-proliferation treaty. Both the US and the UK have abandoned their own obligations to disarm, and appear to be contemplating a new generation of nuclear weapons. Both governments have also suggested that they would be prepared to use them pre-emptively. Iran is surrounded by American military bases, and is one of the two surviving members of the axis of evil. The other one, North Korea, has been threatening its neighbours with impunity. Why? Because it has the bomb. If Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons programme, it hasn`t understood the drift of global politics.

But what can El Baradei do? He can beg Iran to stop developing enriched uranium, but the treaty he is supposed to be enforcing gives him no authority to do so: the government has pointed out that it`s legally entitled to pursue all the processes he fears. This is why he`s seeking to persuade it to stick to "voluntary agreements".

I hope I don`t need to explain how dangerous all this is. The official nuclear powers have junked the non-proliferation treaty, while the non-nuclear powers are using it to develop their own programmes. If Hizbullah clobbers Israel, Israel might turn on Iran, and the Middle East could go up in nuclear dust, rapidly followed by everyone else who has decided to join the second nuclear arms race. And the man charged with preventing this from happening is still facilitating it.

The obvious conclusion is that you can`t phase out nuclear weapons without phasing out nuclear power. Now that the old treaty has become worse than useless, now that the promise of an earthly paradise of free power and electricity too cheap to meter has been shown to be false, isn`t it time for a new nuclear treaty, based not on Eisenhower`s chiliastic fantasy but on grim global realities? Isn`t it time for Mr Baradei to stop destroying the world in order to save it?

www.monbiot.com
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Recruiting terrorists

Leader
Tuesday September 21, 2004

The Guardian
Sir Ivor Roberts, the British ambassador to Italy, who reportedly believes that President George Bush is the "greatest recruiting sergeant for al-Qaida", may have committed a diplomatic indiscretion, but he has done a service to those people who are unhappy with the government`s record on the war in Iraq. Sir Ivor, a highly regarded official, apparently believed he was speaking off the record when he expressed this view at a conference in Tuscany - according to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. The statement itself is hardly original or surprising, but the fact that it has been made public provides powerful evidence that some senior civil servants were and are opposed to Tony Blair`s unqualified backing for Mr Bush`s war strategy. Such a candid appraisal should be embarrassing for a prime minister who has rebuffed criticism by the Hutton and Butler enquiries as well as repeatedly insisting that the world is safer with Saddam Hussein behind bars. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, also disagreed with this yesterday, accusing his Republican rival of "colossal errors of judgment" and diverting resources from the war on terrorism.

Barely a day now goes by without some new assault on the government`s arguments. Last week came definitive confirmation - from the Iraqi Survey Group - that Saddam did not in fact possess any weapons of mass destruction, the main casus belli for the US and Britain. That was followed by an uncharacteristically blunt statement by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, that the war was illegal. Mr Blair`s comment on Sunday that Iraq is now the "crucible" in which the war on terrorism will be won or lost will infuriate those who have long pointed out that there was no terrorism of this kind in Iraq before the war. Its secular Ba`athist dictatorship had many faults, some of them overlooked or underplayed by critics of the US and British governments, but as the British intelligence services reported consistently, it had no links with the fundamentalist al-Qaida. Mr Blair has often argued that the key issue for him was the possible nexus between WMD and terrorists. But we now know that in February 2003, the joint intelligence committee reported that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent "by far the greatest terrorist threat to western interests, and that that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq". Tragically, the mayhem of the post-Saddam era is fertile ground for the al-Qaida affiliate led by the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is threatening the lives of a British engineer and two Americans. Other westerners are being held hostage whether or not their governments were part of the coalition of the willing that marched on Baghdad last March. Iraq has become a rallying-cry for Jihadists across the world.

Newly leaked Cabinet Office and Foreign Office documents have exposed the secret manoeuvring behind Blair`s decision to go to war. These show that in March 2002 he was more concerned about regime change than, as he said publicly, with the danger from WMD. They also reveal that British officials believed privately that Mr Bush wanted to complete his father`s unfinished 1991 business in a "grudge match" against the Iraqi leader. Equally damaging is the revelation that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, predicted that postwar Iraq would face serious problems, not least of which was that the country had no history of democracy. Sir David Manning, the prime minister`s foreign policy adviser, observed that Mr Bush had no idea what was likely to happen "on the morning after." Iraq, the US, Britain, and the world are now well beyond the morning after, and as Sir Ivor has inadvertently reminded us, there are still many troubling questions to answer.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

U.S. Probing Alleged Abuse of Afghans
Inquiry focuses on an 18-year-old soldier who died while in American custody. He and seven other prisoners were tortured, witnesses say.
By Craig Pyes and Mark Mazzetti
Special to The Times

September 21, 2004

GARDEZ, Afghanistan — American military investigators have opened a criminal probe into allegations of murder and torture involving an 18-year-old Afghan army recruit who died while in U.S. custody last year. The new inquiry, which will also focus on the alleged torture of seven other Afghan soldiers, was confirmed Monday by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command.

The previously undisclosed death occurred in March 2003 after the eight soldiers were arrested at a remote firebase operated here by the U.S. Army Special Forces, according to witnesses and an Afghan military investigation.
[Table align=right]

Gov. Raz Mohammed Dalili
[/TABLE]
Motivation for those arrests remains cloaked in Afghan political intrigue. The action was requested by a provincial governor feuding with local military commanders, an Afghan intelligence report says.

In the end, none of the eight men was charged with a crime or linked to anti-government conduct.

The dead soldier, identified as Jamal Naseer, a member of the Afghan Army III Corps, was severely beaten over a span of at least two weeks, according to a report prepared for the Afghan attorney general. A witness described his battered corpse as being "green and black" with bruises.

Alleged American mistreatment of the detainees included repeated beatings, immersion in cold water, electric shocks, being hung upside down and toenails being torn off, according to Afghan investigators and an internal memorandum prepared by a United Nations delegation that interviewed the surviving soldiers.

Some of the Afghan soldiers were beaten to the point that they could not walk or sit, Afghan doctors and other witnesses said.

Afghan military prosecutors looking into the incident privately recommended more than a year ago that the Afghan attorney general`s office pursue a murder case against unnamed American soldiers at the Gardez firebase. No action on the recommendation was taken, but the prosecutors say the case is still open.
[Table align=left]

Jamal Naseer is pictured holding a rifle.
The 18-year-old Afghan died while in U.S.
custody in Gardez. A witness described
his battered corpse as “green and black” with bruises.
[/TABLE]
The prosecutors` confidential 117-page investigative report recently was reviewed by a Washington-based nonprofit educational organization, the Crimes of War Project, and the information was provided to The Times. The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, or CID, stymied in an earlier attempt to investigate the incident, launched its probe over the weekend in response to questions by The Times about the Afghan report.

The eight-man Afghan army unit was taken prisoner as part of a campaign by U.S. forces and the local governor to bring Paktia province in southeastern Afghanistan under the control of the central government, Afghan and U.N. officials said. American forces suspected that some Afghan commanders were selling weapons to anti-government forces, they said.

After Naseer`s death, the seven other troops were transferred to Afghan police custody and released without charges. None was linked to Al Qaeda or the forces of the ousted Taliban regime.

Former Atty. Gen. for the Armed Forces Yar Mohammed Tamkin, who directed the Afghan investigation, concluded in the report that there was a "strong possibility" that Jamal Naseer was "murdered as the result of torture" at the hands of his American captors.

He added that under Afghan law, "it is necessary for our legal system to investigate the torture of the seven individuals and the murder of Jamal, son of Ghazi, and other similar acts committed by foreign nationals."

One witness account provided to Tamkin`s investigators came from Naseer`s brother, an Afghan army commander also among those detained at Gardez. He told investigators in a statement that soon after Naseer died, two "high-ranking" U.S. soldiers squabbled near the body.
[Table align=right]

At the hospital, doctors were unwilling
to conduct an autopsy to determine
officially the cause of Jamal Naseer`s
death for fear they`d be beaten
[/TABLE]
One American, he said, grabbed the other by the collar, scolded him for torturing the youth and said he "should have been shot with a bullet," according to the report.

None of the suspected Americans was identified in the Afghan military`s investigation.

The 20th Special Forces Group was in charge of the Special Forces mission throughout Afghanistan at the time of the Gardez incident. It is a National Guard group based in Birmingham, Ala., that also draws soldiers from units in Florida and Mississippi. Officials said it was customarily assigned to Latin American operations.

The 20th group was replaced countrywide on March 15, 2003, by the 3rd Special Forces Group from Ft. Bragg, N.C., U.S. officials said.

`The Gardez 7`

In Washington, Pentagon officials said they could find no reports passed up the chain of command as required when a death occurs in U.S. custody, raising questions about possible efforts by American troops in Afghanistan to cover up the incident.

Earlier this year, the CID received a tip about the incident from an Afghan prison official but said it was unable to investigate the matter because of a lack of information.

The case of the "Gardez 7," as CID officials dubbed it, was filed away as unfounded because investigators had no records, victims` names or witnesses, said Christopher E. Coffey, an Army detective based at Bagram air base in Afghanistan.

Access to the Afghan military report on the death of Naseer was obtained during an independent investigation of prisoner abuse allegations by the Crimes of War Project.

The group was established in 1999 to provide information that could "lead to greater pressure to prevent [war crimes] and to punish those who commit them." It is described on its website as "a collaboration of journalists, lawyers and scholars dedicated to raising public awareness of the laws of war."

Coffey said that with the new information, the CID would pursue charges of murder and of abuse of a person in U.S. custody.

"We`re trying to figure out who was running the base," Coffey said. "We don`t know what unit was there. There are no records. The reporting system is broke across the board. Units are transferred in and out. There are no SOPs [standard operating procedures] … and each unit acts differently."

Remote bases such as Gardez are usually operated by Special Forces and intelligence agencies and report to special operations commanders. Even representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross are not allowed to visit such bases.

"Gardez is the worst facility — it is three or four times as bad as any other base in Afghanistan," said Coffey, whose CID group has been assigned to Afghanistan since April 2003.

Disclosures this year of U.S. military abuse of detainees at Iraq`s Abu Ghraib prison damaged America`s image around the world, prompting a series of high-level military reviews by the Pentagon.

A report last month by former Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger found that prisoner abuse by interrogators in Iraq could be traced, in part, to the use of unauthorized techniques that had previously been applied in Afghanistan.

In July, an investigation of detainee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by the Army`s inspector general, Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, disclosed 94 cases of alleged abuse, including 39 deaths in U.S. custody — 20 of them suspected homicides. The report said the inspector general had found "no incidents of abuse that had not been reported through command channels."

No Documentation

But Naseer`s death was not among those counted. The absence of documentation appears to undermine findings that all abuse incidents were properly reported through the chain of command.

Witness accounts provided to Afghan military investigators suggest the possibility that U.S. military officials at Gardez tried to distance themselves from the incident almost immediately after the death. All seven survivors and Naseer`s bruised corpse were turned over to local police later the same day, after American officers sought assistance from the governor and local security officials, according to the Afghan military report and interviews.

The Afghan soldiers were transferred to police custody on the governor`s orders — with no arrest warrants, no criminal charges filed and no documentation of Naseer`s death, Police Chief Abdullah Mujahid acknowledged in a letter to the provincial governor.

The letter was included among evidence in the Afghan military investigation.

At the time, the Gardez police chief told officials of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, or UNAMA, that he was keeping the prisoners in custody only at the request of U.S.-led coalition forces.

An American Special Forces commander also had threatened to kill the chief if he released any coalition prisoners, said a UNAMA official who witnessed the warning.

Gardez police held the men for a month and a half with as many as 13 other inmates in a "secret detention room" built for five prisoners, according to the attorney general`s report. While in police custody, the prisoners were treated by local doctors. They told UNAMA that they had received no medical attention during their 17-day detention at the Special Forces base.

At the jail, the men were still wearing the soiled clothes they had on when they were taken into custody, Afghan doctors and other independent witnesses said, and their wounds were not bandaged or treated. Eventually, the men were transferred to a prison near Kabul, but only after their injuries "showed signs of improvement," the military report said.

Their arrival at the Kabul prison without arrest warrants or criminal charges prompted the Afghan government investigation.

The following account is based on evidence and information developed in that investigation, as well as the inquiries conducted by UNAMA and the Crimes of War Project. It was culled primarily from documents and testimony in the Afghan report, the UNAMA internal memorandum and interviews with witnesses and sources familiar with people and events surrounding the death of Naseer.

Local Intrigue

On the morning of March 1, 2003, a group of eight Afghan soldiers manned a frozen military checkpoint at the Sato Kandaw Pass in southeastern Afghanistan`s Paktia province, a strategic outpost on the trade route to Pakistan. It was also a crossroads for political rivalries.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, then the special presidential envoy to Afghanistan, had months earlier declared Paktia one of the three most troubled regions in the country in terms of warlord violence. Local intelligence agents also reported suspicions that some military units allied with interim President Hamid Karzai`s central government were selling arms to Taliban elements.

Provincial Gov. Raz Mohammed Dalili, a Karzai ally, was being challenged for regional power by tribal warlord Bacha Khan. Local military and police commanders loyal to the central government also opposed Khan but feuded as well with the governor and among themselves.

One way feuding Afghan factions settle old scores or seek fresh advantage is by reporting their enemies to the Americans as Al Qaeda or Taliban members, an Afghan legal expert said.

"It doesn`t matter if you`re a criminal or not," said Lal Gul, chairman of the Afghan Commission for Human Rights. "People can say what they want against you. The Special Forces, if they want to arrest you, will just take you away…. They can`t distinguish between real and false suspects."

One of the governor`s projects at the time was to clear the roads of illegal checkpoints run by provincial army commanders.

Dalili said in a recent interview that the Karzai government and the U.S. Embassy had asked him to work closely with American Special Forces in the region. In Kabul, Dalili was considered too weak to take on local commanders alone. The governor said he asked "Mike" — the nom de guerre of the Special Forces commander at Gardez — to move against the Sato Kandaw checkpoint.

UNAMA officials in Gardez said they knew a succession of Special Forces commanders as "Mike." The "Mike" in charge during March 2003 was so aggressive in his avowed mission to rid the country of "bad guys" that a fellow soldier called him "Crazy Mike," a UNAMA official said.

At a March 10 meeting of local security officials sponsored by UNAMA, Mike reportedly warned local commanders that he would kill any one of them if they released his Taliban prisoners or sided with anti-coalition forces. One official in attendance said he stood up and interrupted.

" `Mike, sit down. This is the United Nations. We don`t talk about shooting or killing people here…. If you want to tell him you`ll kill him, commence your own meeting and tell him there.` "

Today, Dalili continues to speak proudly about his association with American Special Forces and is effusive in his praise of Mike.

"My only purpose was to bring peace and security," he said in the interview.

Afghan military intelligence in Paktia took a dimmer view. They concluded in a report that the governor ordered the arrests of the men at the Sato Kandaw checkpoint to defame the Afghan Army III Corps commanders with whom he was feuding.

The arrested soldiers also blamed warlord Khan, who coveted control of Sato Kandaw Pass, for providing false intelligence about the soldiers to the American Special Forces.

Tea and Shackles

Most of the eight Afghan soldiers on duty at the pass were in a basement shelter when the U.S. Special Forces unit and its interpreters drove up to the checkpoint about 11 a.m. The "foreign friends" asked to join them for tea and they were invited inside, the men recalled.

The Afghans were led by Naseer Ahmad, known as Commander Pare, a 25-year-old soldier with a vivid scar from the corner of one eye to the lobe of an ear. A thick shock of black hair burst from under his pakol hat. The youngest Afghan soldier was Pare`s brother, the slightly built, bearded 18-year-old Jamal Naseer, a new recruit looking for his first permanent job. The security checkpoint was heavily armed, according to the Afghan report.

Just as sugar was being put in the cups, the Americans "pointed their weapons at us and told us, `Don`t move!` " one of the Afghans told prosecutors.

According to accounts from the arrested men, they were disarmed, handcuffed, shackled and blindfolded. Some said they were struck by rifle butts.

"We were taken like animals" to the Gardez firebase, Momin, one of those arrested, told prosecutors. "The behavior of the authorities was completely wild."

17 Days in March

The men said they were interrogated individually. They were asked about Al Qaeda. They were grilled about stealing wood from trucks grinding north over the pass toward Kabul.

The Afghans said they were pummeled, kicked, karate-chopped, hung upside down and struck repeatedly with sticks, rubber hoses and plastic-covered cables. Some said they were immersed in cold water, then made to lie in the snow. Some said they were kept blindfolded for long periods and subjected to electric shocks to their toes.

One of the men, Abdul Rahim, said the beatings stopped only after he convinced the Americans that he was simply the unit`s cook.

"They beat us a lot. They tore off our nails…. I was beaten very hard by punches and kicks," Momin, who, like many Afghans, goes by one name, told investigators. "I was seriously injured from the beatings."

In his statement to prosecutors, Noor Mohammed said: "They put us in the water and on the snow and beat us up…. They were throwing us against the wall."

Afghan authorities found substantial corroboration for such claims from witnesses describing the soldiers` physical condition after 17 days in U.S. custody.

Gardez Police Chief Mujahid told military prosecutors that when the men arrived at his jail from the American compound, many had injuries that appeared to be the result of severe impacts. A doctor was called to treat the prisoners.

Dr. Aziz Ulrahman, who worked at the Gardez Hospital, examined Commander Pare that night at the police station. He told the Crimes of War Project that the man`s feet were swollen and black and blue, injuries "caused by blunt-force trauma."

The UNAMA delegation interviewed the men at the Gardez jail and described similar injuries in a confidential memo dated March 26, 2003. It reported that two of the men were visibly wounded and one was unable to walk as a result of what he said were beatings to his knees and legs. The men unanimously blamed U.S. soldiers for their injuries, the U.N. team said.

The delegation recommended an investigation into possible human rights violations, torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment by Special Forces personnel.

In an interview, UNAMA officials said they did not know the status of that recommendation.

A Cold, Quiet End

Witnesses remembered it was a bitterly cold day when American soldiers half-carried Commander Pare`s younger brother to the warmth of the cook`s room at the U.S. firebase. A wood stove held off the late winter chill outside.

But Jamal Naseer was not comforted. He complained to the witnesses of pains in his abdomen. He was so badly bruised he could not walk unaided. After a short time he asked for help getting outside to urinate.

Two Afghans working in the cook`s room lifted the 18-year-old under each arm and eased him out the door. In an interview, one of the men who asked not to be named recalled that the young man started to loosen his trousers, then went limp and collapsed to the ground.

The men knelt beside him. They saw his eyes roll upward in a frozen stare. The young soldier died in their arms. It was about midday, the witness said.

Hours later, Commander Pare was brought to his brother`s side in a long tent in the prisoner compound, he told a reporter. Apparent efforts by the camp`s medical personnel to resuscitate Naseer had failed.

"After I entered the room, I observed that a plastic tube was in my brother`s mouth and an injection into his arm," he told investigators. "Meanwhile, three senior [U.S. soldiers] entered and asked the translator who had done the beating…. At this moment, [one soldier] grabbed [another soldier] by the collar and said that he should not have been tortured and should have been shot with a bullet."

Pare said the American officers left, then one returned and offered personal condolences. He said the American told him there had been a misunderstanding.

"They told me that they respected my religion and they asked for forgiveness in mistreating us," Pare told Afghan investigators. "Afterward, they asked what they could do to help me."

The commander said he refused their offer of money for burial expenses. He said he would burn anything given to him by the Americans rather than "spoil the martyrdom of my brother."

Later, the Afghan who had witnessed Naseer`s death came to visit Pare. They both wept over the body. The witness later told a reporter he was deeply saddened by the death. "Whether he was innocent or guilty, he was still a Muslim."

The man helped Pare turn the youth`s body to face Mecca. Pare sat beside his brother`s remains until 10 p.m., until a police vehicle arrived to transport it to the hospital.

At the hospital, doctors were unwilling to conduct an autopsy to determine officially the cause of Naseer`s death. They were fearful police would return and beat them, according to a deputy hospital administrator later interviewed by Afghan prosecutors.

What exists of an official death record was provided in a formal statement by a hospital security guard named Haji Abdul Qayum, who prepared the body for burial.

In his statement to prosecutors, Qayum described himself as "a Muslim eyewitness and … someone who has seen the corpse of Jamal."

Describing the state of the corpse after it was picked up from the American compound, the security guard said in his statement: "The body seemed green and black. The area around his knees was injured and was black, and his toes were swollen and his right elbow was bruised and seemed to be burned."

Qayum said in a later interview with a reporter that Naseer`s "face was completely swollen, as were his palms, and the soles of his feet were swollen double in size. The face was dark and looked like it was burned, and both eyes were swollen shut."

He recalled that when he stripped away the dead man`s clothes, a length of insulated cable fell out of a pant leg. He said it had copper loops at each end. He said he discarded it.

Naseer`s mother also attested to the body`s condition. In a statement to prosecutors she said, "I observed his entire body, with wounds to his chest and legs and injuries all over his body."

Foreign Friends

Within hours, Americans contacted the governor and other security officials to get the corpse and to transfer the remaining detainees to the custody of Gardez police, according to the military report. The transfers were completed during the night of March 16 and into the next morning on the governor`s personal order, the report said.

The transfer set in motion a number of inquires by Afghan civilian and military authorities to determine why the dostan kharagi, or foreign friends, as they referred to the Americans, had arrested and allegedly tortured their soldiers, and on what grounds the men were being held.

In the end, none of the concerned agencies said they had evidence that the men had committed any crimes, or were linked to anti-government elements.

The sole reason for their continued detention, the investigators concluded, was because the Americans wanted the prisoners hidden until their wounds had time to heal.

The men remained in custody another month and a half. Gardez police finally transferred them to the national prison facility near Kabul.

But in Kabul, prison authorities again questioned on what legal grounds the soldiers were being held and asked the Afghan attorney general of the armed forces to investigate.

Afghanistan`s attorney general ordered that the case be fully investigated by military prosecutors. A request by Afghanistan`s Army III Corps for an explanation of the incident from U.S. military officials received no response, according to documents in the Afghan report to the attorney general.

Much of that lengthy report is written in longhand Dari. Official statements by illiterate soldiers were commonly stamped with their fingerprints after the statements were read back to them.

In the end, the key findings were confined to one page of the report.

The first was that "the seven soldiers who had been transferred to the Kabul prison were being held without evidence of guilt." In response, the attorney general immediately ordered their release.

Second, there was "a strong possibility that one of those arrested, Jamal, son of Ghazi, had been murdered by coalition forces as a result of being tortured." The authors cited the 14th amendment of the penal code of Afghanistan to keep the case open for further investigation. To date, the attorney general has not acted on that recommendation.

The dogeared dossier has been filed away in a provincial outpost. Under Afghan law, there is a 10-year statute of limitations running on any future criminal prosecution of the case, one of the prosecutors said.

Prosecutor Abdulghani Kochai said no one involved in the case on the Afghan side was willing to quit. The mother of Jamal Naseer, he said, wants to eventually testify against those she believes killed her son.

"She cut away a piece of skin from his leg showing the marks of torture, and has wrapped it in a scarf to use as evidence on that day."

Freelance reporter Pyes reported from Afghanistan, where he also prepared investigative reports for the Crimes of War Project. Times staff writer Mazzetti reported from Washington.

Die Dokumente in PDF-Format:
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2004-09/14329233.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2004-09/14329241.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2004-09/14329240.pdf

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

ROBERT SCHEER
True Conservatives Would Back Kerry
Robert Scheer

September 21, 2004

If they were true to their principles, moderate Republicans and consistent conservatives would be supporting John Kerry. Instead, their acquiescence to the reckless whims of George W. Bush marks a descent into that political abyss of opportunism where partisanship is everything and principle nothing.

How else to explain their cynical support for this shallow adventurer, a phony lightweight who has bled the Treasury dry while incompetently squandering the lives of young Americans in a needless imperial campaign? If Al Gore had been knighted president by the Supreme Court and overseen this mess instead of Dubya, the rational remnant of the Republican Party would be rightly calling for his head.

Instead, a century`s worth of conservative ideals are tossed out the window for political expediency. Soaring budget deficits suddenly don`t matter, and not a tear is shed for the wasted surplus accumulated during Bill Clinton`s tenure. Despite two huge tax cuts for the super-rich, Bush turns out to be a big believer in that old GOP boogeyman, Big Government. An equal-opportunity spendthrift, he throws billions into the sinkhole of Iraq as easily as he doles out corporate handouts.

In the newspapers we read about American mothers and fathers working in deadly Iraq as drivers and security guards because they can`t find work at home. More than a million jobs have been lost since the end of the prosperous Clinton era, while real wages are stagnant. The rich have enjoyed unprecedented tax breaks even as the middle class has eroded and millions have fallen below the poverty line.



Healthcare costs are spiraling, nothing has been done to shore up Social Security and Medicare against the impending flood of retiring baby boomers, and the number of those without medical insurance is a national embarrassment — though perhaps not to the former governor of Texas, a state that far and away leads the country in this disquieting statistic.

Bush`s startling inattention to our serious problems is explained away by reference to the new burden of the war on terror. How odd, then, to note that it was Bush`s preoccupation with Iraq both before and after 9/11 that has left us so vulnerable to Muslim hatred and terrorist attacks. Before Sept. 11, 2001, ignored warnings and flaccid response; afterward, a campaign of lies to justify a military occupation at the Muslim world`s heart.

Instead of making the U.S. safer, the hasty and unilateral dive into the Iraq quagmire shredded the post-9/11 international unity of purpose indispensable to any serious effort to root out terrorism.

But don`t take my word for it: That the occupation of Iraq is a festering disaster was finally acknowledged by some Republican senators on Sunday`s talk shows in the wake of the latest depressing prognostications of U.S. intelligence agencies.

"The fact is, we`re in deep trouble in Iraq," Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) conceded. "We made serious mistakes," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blamed the glaring failures in Iraq on "the incompetence in the administration."

Unfortunately, the solution offered by these Republican critics was an escalation of the U.S. military effort, the root cause of the rising anti-U.S. nationalism in Iraq that is crossing ethnic, religious and regional lines. A true conservative would heed George Washington`s warning to avoid such foreign entanglements. This is why in 2000, candidate Bush, pretending to be conservative, said he was against "nation-building." Now, led by radical ideologues way outside the conservative mainstream, he`s got us trying to build two nations — and failing — with many in his administration hoping to take on a few more in a second term. Talk about flip-flopping.

On Monday, Kerry made his strongest case yet that Bush was leading us dangerously astray. "Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight," Kerry said, calling Iraq a "profound diversion" from the war on terror. "The satisfaction we take in [Saddam Hussein`s] downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Kerry has now framed the debate we need to have concerning American priorities. And in their hearts, responsible Republicans and independents must now realize that Kerry is right.




Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Baghdad Year Zero

"Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia"

By Naomi Klein

Harper`s Magazine, September 2004 -- It was only after I had been in Baghdad for a month that I found what I was looking for. I had traveled to Iraq a year after the war began, at the height of what should have been a construction boom, but after weeks of searching I had not seen a single piece of heavy machinery apart from tanks and humvees. Then I saw it: a construction crane. It was big and yellow and impressive, and when I caught a glimpse of it around a corner in a busy shopping district I thought that I was finally about to witness some of the reconstruction I had heard so much about. But as I got closer I noticed that the crane was not actually rebuilding anything - not one of the bombed-out government buildings that still lay in rubble all over the city, nor one of the many power lines that remained in twisted heaps even as the heat of summer was starting to bear down. No, the crane was hoisting a giant billboard to the top of a three-story building. SUNBULA: HONEY 100% NATURAL, made in Saudi Arabia.

Seeing the sign, I couldn`t help but think about something Senator John McCain had said back in October. Iraq, he said, is "a huge pot of honey that`s attracting a lot of flies." The flies McCain was referring to were the Halliburtons and Bechtels, as well as the venture capitalists who flocked to Iraq in the path cleared by Bradley Fighting Vehicles and laser-guided bombs. The honey that drew them was not just no-bid contracts and Iraq`s famed oil wealth but the myriad investment opportunities offered by a country that had just been cracked wide open after decades of being sealed off, first by the nationalist economic policies of Saddam Hussein, then by asphyxiating United Nations sanctions.

Looking at the honey billboard, I was also reminded of the most common explanation for what has gone wrong in Iraq, a complaint echoed by everyone from John Kerry to Pat Buchanan: Iraq is mired in blood and deprivation because George W. Bush didn`t have "a postwar plan." The only problem with this theory is that it isn`t true. The Bush Administration did have a plan for what it would do after the war; put simply, it was to lay out as much honey as possible, then sit back and wait for the flies.

The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war`s ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush`s Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.

Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions. The people of Iraq would, of course, have to endure some short-term pain: assets, previously owned by the state, would have to be given up to create new opportunities for growth and investment. Jobs would have to be lost and, as foreign products flooded across the border, local businesses and family farms would, unfortunately, be unable to compete. But to the authors of this plan, these would be small prices to pay for the economic boom that would surely explode once the proper conditions were in place, a boom so powerful the country would practically rebuild itself.

The fact that the boom never came and Iraq continues to tremble under explosions of a very different sort should never be blamed on the absence of a plan. Rather, the blame rests with the plan itself, and the extraordinarily violent ideology upon which it is based.

Torturers believe that when electrical shocks are applied to various parts of the body simultaneously subjects are rendered so confused about where the pain is coming from that they become incapable of resistance. A declassified CIA "Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual from 1963 describes how a trauma inflicted on prisoners opens up "an interval – which may be extremely brief - of suspended animation, a kind of psychological shock or paralysis ... At this moment the source is far more open to suggestion, far likelier to comply." A similar theory applies to economic shock therapy, or "shock treatment," the ugly term used to describe the rapid implementation of free-market reforms imposed on Chile in the wake of General Augusto Pinochet`s coup. The theory is that if painful economic "adjustments" are brought in rapidly and in the aftermath of a seismic social disruption like a war, a coup, or a government collapse, the population will be so stunned, and so preoccupied with the daily pressures of survival, that it too will go into suspended animation, unable to resist. As Pinochet`s finance minister, Admiral Lorenzo Gotuzzo, declared, "The dog`s tail must be cut off in one chop."

That, in essence, was the working thesis in Iraq, and in keeping with the belief that private companies are more suited than governments for virtually every task, the White House decided to privatize the task of privatizing Iraq`s state-dominated economy. Two months before the war began, USAID began drafting a work order, to be handed out to a private company, to oversee Iraq`s "transition to a sustainable market-driven economic system." The document states that the winning company (which turned out to be the KPMG offshoot Bearing Pint) will take "appropriate advantage of the unique opportunity for rapid progress in this area presented by the current configuration of political circumstances." Which is precisely what happened. L. Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. occupation of Iraq from May 2, 2003, until he caught an early flight out of Baghdad on June 28, admits that when he arrived, "Baghdad was on fire, literally, as I drove in from the airport." But before the fires from the "shock and awe" military onslaught were even extinguished, Bremer unleashed his shock therapy, pushing through more wrenching changes in one sweltering summer than the International Monetary Fund has managed to enact over three decades in Latin America. Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate and former chief economist at the World Bank, describes Bremer`s reforms as "an even more radical form of shock therapy than pursued in the former Soviet world."

The tone of Bremer`s tenure was set with his first major act on the job: he fired 500,000 state workers, most of them soldiers, but also doctors, nurses, teachers, publishers, and printers. Next, he flung open the country`s borders to absolutely unrestricted imports: no tariffs, no duties, no inspections, no taxes. Iraq, Bremer declared two weeks after he arrived, was "open for business."

One month later, Bremer unveiled the centerpiece of his reforms. Before the invasion, Iraq`s non-oil-related economy had been dominated by 200 state-owned companies, which produced everything from cement to paper to washing machines. In June, Bremer flew to an economic summit in Jordan and announced that these firms would be privatized immediately. "Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands," he said, "is essential for Iraq`s economic recovery." It would be the largest state liquidation sale since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But Bremer`s economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq`s corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years. Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. All that remained of Saddam Hussein`s economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.

If these policies sound familiar, it`s because they are the same ones multinationals around the world lobby for from national governments and in international trade agreements. But while these reforms are only ever enacted in part, or in fits and starts, Bremer delivered them all, all at once. Overnight, Iraq went from being the most isolated country in the world to being, on paper, its widest-open market.

At first, the shock-therapy theory seemed to hold: Iraqis, reeling from violence both military and economic, were far too busy staying alive to mount a political response to Bremer`s campaign. Worrying about the privatization of the sewage system was an unimaginable luxury with half the population lacking access to clean drinking water; the debate over the flat tax would have to wait until the lights were back on. Even in the international press, Bremer`s new laws, though radical, were easily upstaged by more dramatic news of political chaos and rising crime.

Some people were paying attention, of course. That autumn was awash in "rebuilding Iraq" trade shows, in Washington, London, Madrid, and Amman. The Economist described Iraq under Bremer as "a capitalist dream," and a flurry of new consulting firms were launched promising to help companies get access to the Iraqi market, their boards of directors stacked with well-connected Republicans. The most prominent was New Bridge Strategies, started by Joe Allbaugh, former Bush-Cheney campaign manager. "Getting the rights to distribute Procter & Gamble products can be a gold mine," one of the company`s partners enthused. "One well-stocked 7-Eleven could knock out thirty Iraqi stores; a Wal-Mart could take over the country."

Soon there were rumors that a McDonald`s would be opening up in downtown Baghdad, funding was almost in place for a Starwood luxury hotel, and General Motors was planning to build an auto plant. On the financial side, HSBC would have branches all over the country, Citigroup was preparing to offer substantial loans guaranteed against future sales of Iraqi oil, and the bell was going to ring on a New York-style stock exchange in Baghdad any day.

In only a few months, the postwar plan to turn Iraq into a laboratory for the neocons had been realized. Leo Strauss may have provided the intellectual framework for invading Iraq preemptively, but it was that other University of Chicago professor, Milton Friedman, author of the anti-government manifesto Capitalism and Freedom, who supplied the manual for what to do once the country was safely in America`s hands. This represented an enormous victory for the most ideological wing of the Bush Administration. But it was also something more: the culmination of two interlinked power struggles, one among Iraqi exiles advising the White House on its postwar strategy, the other within the White House itself.

As the British historian Dilip Hiro has shown, in Secrets and Lies: Operation `Iraqi Freedom` and After, the Iraqi exiles pushing for the invasion were divided, broadly, into two camps. On one side were "the pragmatists," who favored getting rid of Saddam and his immediate entourage, securing access to oil, and slowly introducing free-market reforms. Many of these exiles were part of the State Department`s Future of Iraq Project, which generated a thirteen-volume report on how to restore basic services and transition to democracy after the war. On the other side was the "Year Zero" camp, those who believed that Iraq was so contaminated that it needed to be rubbed out and remade from scratch. The prime advocate of the pragmatic approach was Iyad Allawi, a former high-level Baathist who fell out with Saddam and started working for the CIA. The prime advocate of the Year Zero approach was Ahmad Chalabi, whose hatred of the Iraqi state for expropriating his family`s assets during the 1958 revolution ran so deep he longed to see the entire country burned to the ground - everything, that is, but the Oil Ministry, which would be the nucleus of the new Iraq, the cluster of cells from which an entire nation would grow. He called this process "de-Baathification."

A parallel battle between pragmatists and true believers was being waged within the Bush Administration. The pragmatists were men like Secretary of State Colin Powell and General Jay Garner, the first U.S. envoy to postwar Iraq. General Garner`s plan was straightforward enough: fix the infrastructure, hold quick and dirty elections, leave the shock therapy to the International Monetary Fund, and concentrate on securing U.S. military bases on the model of the Philippines. "I think we should look right now at Iraq as our coaling station in the Middle East," he told the BBC. He also paraphrased T. E. Lawrence, saying, "It`s better for them to do it imperfectly than for us to do it for them perfectly." On the other side was the usual cast of neoconservatives: Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (who lauded Bremer`s "sweeping reforms" as "some of the most enlightened and inviting tax and investment laws in the free world"), Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and perhaps most centrally, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Whereas the State Department had its Future of Iraq report, the neocons had USAID`s contract with Bearing Point to remake Iraq`s economy: in 108 pages, "privatization" was mentioned no fewer than fifty-one times. To the true believers in the White House, General Garner`s plans for postwar Iraq seemed hopelessly unambitious. Why settle for a mere coaling station when you can have a model free market? Why settle for the Philippines when you can have a beacon unto the world?

The Iraqi Year Zeroists made natural allies for the White House neoconservatives: Chalabi`s seething hatred of the Baathist state fit nicely with the neocons` hatred of the state in general, and the two agendas effortlessly merged. Together, they came to imagine the invasion of Iraq as a kind of Rapture: where the rest of the world saw death, they saw birth - a country redeemed through violence, cleansed by fire. Iraq wasn`t being destroyed by cruise missiles, cluster bombs, chaos, and looting; it was being born again. April 9, 2003, the day Baghdad fell, was day One of Year Zero.

While the war was being waged, it still wasn`t clear whether the pragmatists or the Year Zeroists would be handed control over occupied Iraq. But the speed with which the nation was conquered dramatically increased the neocons` political capital, since they had been predicting a "cakewalk" all along. Eight days after George Bush landed on that aircraft carrier under a banner that said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, the President publicly signed on to the neocons` vision for Iraq to become a model corporate state that would open up the entire region. On May 9, Bush proposed the "establishment of a U.S.-Middle East free trade area within a decade"; three days later, Bush sent Paul Bremer to Baghdad to replace Jay Garner, who had been on the job for only three weeks. The message was unequivocal: the pragmatists had lost; Iraq would belong to the believers.

A Reagan-era diplomat turned entrepreneur, Bremer had recently proven his ability to transform rubble into gold by waiting exactly one month after the September 11 attacks to launch Crisis Consulting Practice, a security company selling "terrorism risk insurance" to multinationals. Bremer had two lieutenants on the economic front: Thomas Foley and Michael Fleischer, the heads of "private sector development" for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Foley is a Greenwich, Connecticut, multimillionaire, a longtime friend of the Bush family and a Bush-Cheney campaign "pioneer" who has described Iraq as a modern California "gold rush." Fleischer, a venture capitalist, is the brother of former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Neither man had any high-level diplomatic experience and both use the term corporate "turnaround" specialist to describe what they do. According to Foley, this uniquely qualified them to manage Iraq`s economy because it was "the mother of all turnarounds."

Many of the other CPA postings were equally ideological. The Green Zone, the city within a city that houses the occupation headquarters in Saddam`s former palace, was filled with Young Republicans straight out of the Heritage Foundation, all of them given responsibility they could never have dreamed of receiving at home. Jay Hallen, a twenty-four-year-old who had applied for a job at the White House, was put in charge of launching Baghdad`s new stock exchange. Scott Erwin, a twenty-one-year-old former intern to Dick Cheney, reported in an email home that "I am assisting Iraqis in the management of finances and budgeting for the domestic security forces." The college senior`s favorite job before this one? "My time as an ice-cream truck driver." In those early days, the Green Zone felt a bit like the Peace Corps, for people who think the Peace Corps is a communist plot. It was a chance to sleep on cots, wear army boots, and cry "incoming" – all while being guarded around the clock by real soldiers.

The teams of KPMG accountants, investment bankers, think-tank lifers, and Young Republicans that populate the Green Zone have much in common with the IMF missions that rearrange the economies of developing countries from the presidential suites of Sheraton hotels the world over. Except for one rather significant difference: in Iraq they were not negotiating with the government to accept their "structural adjustments" in exchange for a loan; they were the government.

Some small steps were taken, however, to bring Iraq`s U.S.-appointed politicians inside. Yegor Gaidar, the mastermind of Russia`s mid-nineties privatization auction that gave away the country`s assets to the reigning oligarchs, was invited to share his wisdom at a conference in Baghdad. Marek Belka, who as finance minister oversaw the same process in Poland, was brought in as well. The Iraqis who proved most gifted at mouthing the neocon lines were selected to act as what USAID calls local "policy champions" – men like Ahmad al Mukhtar, who told me of his countrymen, "They are lazy. The Iraqis by nature, they are very dependent.... They will have to depend on themselves, it is the only way to survive in the world today." Although he has no economics background and his last job was reading the English-language news on television, al Mukhtar was appointed director of foreign relations in the Ministry of Trade and is leading the charge for Iraq to join the World Trade Organization.

I had been following the economic front of the war for almost a year before I decided to go to Iraq. I attended the "Rebuilding Iraq" trade shows, studied Bremer`s tax and investment laws, met with contractors at their home offices in the United States, interviewed the government officials in Washington who are making the policies. But as I prepared to travel to Iraq in March to see this experiment in free-market utopianism up close, it was becoming increasingly clear that all was not going according to plan. Bremer had been working on the theory that if you build a corporate utopia the corporations will come – but where were they? American multinationals were happy to accept U.S. taxpayer dollars to reconstruct the phone or electricity systems, but they weren`t sinking their own money into Iraq. There was, as yet, no McDonald`s or Wal-Mart in Baghdad, and even the sales of state factories, announced so confidently nine months earlier, had not materialized.

Some of the holdup had to do with the physical risks of doing business in Iraq. But there were other more significant risks as well. When Paul Bremer shredded Iraq`s Baathist constitution and replaced it with what The Economist greeted approvingly as "the wish list of foreign investors," there was one small detail he failed to mention: It was all completely illegal. The CPA derived its legal authority from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, passed in May 2003, which recognized the United States and Britain as Iraq`s legitimate occupiers. It was this resolution that empowered Bremer to unilaterally make laws in Iraq. But the resolution also stated that the U.S. and Britain must "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907." Both conventions were born as an attempt to curtail the unfortunate historical tendency among occupying powers to rewrite the rules so that they can economically strip the nations they control. With this in mind, the conventions stipulate that an occupier must abide by a country`s existing laws unless "absolutely prevented" from doing so. They also state that an occupier does not own the "public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural assets" of the country it is occupying but is rather their "administrator" and custodian, keeping them secure until sovereignty is re-established. This was the true threat to the Year Zero plan: since America didn`t own Iraq`s assets, it could not legally sell them, which meant that after the occupation ended, an Iraqi government could come to power and decide that it wanted to keep the state companies in public hands, or, as is the norm in the Gulf region, to bar foreign firms from owning 100 percent of national assets. If that happened, investments made under Bremer`s rules could be expropriated, leaving firms with no recourse because their investments had violated international law from the outset.

By November, trade lawyers started to advise their corporate clients not to go into Iraq just yet, that it would be better to wait until after the transition. Insurance companies were so spooked that not a single one of the big firms would insure investors for "political risk," that high-stakes area of insurance law that protects companies against foreign governments turning nationalist or socialist and expropriating their investments.

Even the U.S.-appointed Iraqi politicians, up to now so obedient, were getting nervous about their own political futures if they went along with the privatization plans. Communications Minister Haider al-Abadi told me about his first meeting with Bremer. "I said, `Look, we don`t have the mandate to sell any of this. Privatization is a big thing. We have to wait until there is an Iraqi government.`" Minister of Industry Mohamad Tofiq was even more direct: "I am not going to do something that is not legal, so that`s it."

Both al-Abadi and Tofiq told me about a meeting - never reported in the press - that took place in late October 2003. At that gathering the twenty-five members of Iraq`s Governing Council as well as the twenty-five interim ministers decided unanimously that they would not participate in the privatization of Iraq`s state-owned companies or of its publicly owned infrastructure.

But Bremer didn`t give up. International law prohibits occupiers from selling state assets themselves, but it doesn`t say anything about the puppet governments they appoint. Originally, Bremer had pledged to hand over power to a directly elected Iraqi government, but in early November he went to Washington for a private meeting with President Bush and came back with a Plan B. On June 30 the occupation would officially end – but not really. It would be replaced by an appointed government, chosen by Washington. This government would not be bound by the international laws preventing occupiers from selling off state assets, but it would by bound by an "interim constitution," a document that would protect Bremer`s investment and privatization laws.

The plan was risky. Bremer`s June 30 deadline was awfully close, and it was chosen for a less than ideal reason: so that President Bush could trumpet the end of Iraq`s occupation on the campaign trail. If everything went according to plan, Bremer would succeed in forcing a "sovereign" Iraqi government to carry out his illegal reforms. But if something went wrong, he would have to go ahead with the June 30 handover anyway because by then Karl Rove, and not dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, would be calling the shots. And if it came down to a choice between ideology in Iraq and the electability of George W. Bush, everyone knew which would win.

At first, Plan B seemed to be right on track. Bremer persuaded the Iraqi Governing Council to agree to everything: the new timetable, the interim government, and the interim constitution. He even managed to slip into the constitution a completely overlooked clause, Article 26. It stated that for the duration of the interim government, "The laws, regulations, orders and directives issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority ... shall remain in force" and could only be changed after general elections are held.

Bremer had found this legal loophole: There would be a window – seven months – when the occupation was officially over but before general elections were scheduled to take place. Within this window, the Hague and Geneva Conventions` bans on privatization would no longer apply, but Bremer`s own laws, thanks to Article 26, would stand. During these seven months, foreign investors could come to Iraq and sign forty-year contracts to buy up Iraqi assets. If a future elected Iraqi government decided to change the rules, investors could sue for compensation.

But Bremer had a formidable opponent: Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, the most senior Shia cleric in Iraq. al Sistani tried to block Bremer`s plan at every turn, calling for immediate direct elections and for the constitution to be written after those elections, not before. Both demands, if met, would have closed Bremer`s privatization window. Then, on March 2, with the Shia members of the Governing Council refusing to sign the interim constitution, five bombs exploded in front of mosques in Karbala and Baghdad, killing close to 200 worshipers. General John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, warned that the country was on the verge of civil war. Frightened by this prospect, al Sistani backed down and the Shia politicians signed the interim constitution. It was a familiar story: the shock of a violent attack paved the way for more shock therapy.

When I arrived in Iraq a week later, the economic project seemed to be back on track. All that remained for Bremer was to get his interim constitution ratified by a Security Council resolution, then the nervous lawyers and insurance brokers could relax and the sell-off of Iraq could finally begin. The CPA, meanwhile, had launched a major new P.R. offensive designed to reassure investors that Iraq was still a safe and exciting place to do business. The centerpiece of the campaign was Destination Baghdad Exposition, a massive trade show for potential investors to be held in early April at the Baghdad International Fairgrounds. It was the first such event inside Iraq, and the organizers had branded the trade fair "DBX," as if it were some sort of Mountain Dew-sponsored dirt-bike race. In keeping with the extreme-sports theme, Thomas Foley traveled to Washington to tell a gathering of executives that the risks in Iraq are akin "to skydiving or riding a motorcycle, which are, to many, very acceptable risks."

But three hours after my arrival in Baghdad, I was finding these reassurances extremely hard to believe. I had not yet unpacked when my hotel room was filled with debris and the windows in the lobby were shattered. Down the street, the Mount Lebanon Hotel had just been bombed, at that point the largest attack of its kind since the official end of the war. The next day, another hotel was bombed in Basra, then two Finnish businessmen were murdered on their way to a meeting in Baghdad. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt finally admitted that there was a pattern at work: "the extremists have started shifting away from the hard targets ... and are now going out of their way to specifically target softer targets." The next day, the State Department updated its travel advisory: U.S. citizens were "strongly warned against travel to Iraq." The physical risks of doing business in Iraq seemed to be spiraling out of control. This, once again, was not part of the original plan. When Bremer first arrived in Baghdad, the armed resistance was so low that he was able to walk the streets with a minimal security entourage. During his first four months on the job, 109 U.S. soldiers were killed and 570 were wounded. In the following four months, when Bremer`s shock therapy had taken effect, the number of U.S. casualties almost doubled, with 195 soldiers killed and 1,633 wounded. There are many in Iraq who argue that these events are connected – that Bremer`s reforms were the single largest factor leading to the rise of armed resistance.

Take, for instance, Bremer`s first casualties. The soldiers and workers he laid off without pensions or severance pay didn`t all disappear quietly. Many of them went straight into the mujahedeen, forming the backbone of the armed resistance. "Half a million people are now worse off, and there you have the water tap that keeps the insurgency going. It`s alternative employment," says Hussain Kubba, head of the prominent Iraqi business group Kubba Consulting. Some of Bremer`s other economic casualties also have failed to go quietly. It turns out that many of the businessmen whose companies are threatened by Bremer`s investment laws have decided to make investments of their own - in the resistance. It is partly their money that keeps fighters in Kalashnikovs and RPGs.

These developments present a challenge to the basic logic of shock therapy: the neocons were convinced that if they brought in their reforms quickly and ruthlessly, Iraqis would be too stunned to resist. But the shock appears to have had the opposite effect; rather than the predicted paralysis, it jolted many Iraqis into action, much of it extreme. Haider al-Abadi, Iraq’s minister of communication, puts it this way: “We know that there are terrorists in the country, but previously they were not successful, they were isolated. Now because the whole country is unhappy, and a lot of people don’t have jobs … these terrorists are finding listening ears.”

Bremer was now at odds not only with the Iraqis who opposed his plans but with U.S. military commanders charged with putting down the insurgency his policies were feeding. Heretical questions began to be raised: instead of laying people off, what if the CPA actually created jobs for Iraqis? And instead of rushing to sell off Iraq’s 200 state-owned firms, how about putting them back to work?

From the start, the neocons running Iraq had shown nothing but disdain for Iraq’s state-owned companies. In keeping with their Year Zero – apocalyptic glee, when looters descended on the factories during the war, U.S. forces did nothing. Sabah Asaad, managing director of a refrigerator factory outside Baghdad, told me that while the looting was going on, he went to a nearby U.S. Army base and begged for help. “I asked one of the officers to send two soldiers and a vehicle to help me kick out the looters. I was crying. The officer said, ‘Sorry, we can’t do anything, we need an order from President Bush.’” Back in Washington, Donald Rumsfeld shrugged. “Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.”

To see the remains of Asaad’s football-field-size warehouse is to understand why Frank Gehry had an artistic crisis after September 11 and was briefly unable to design structures resembling the rubble of modern buildings. Asaad’s looted and burned factory looks remarkably like a heavy-metal version of Gehry’s Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain, with waves of steel, buckled by fire, lying in terrifyingly beautiful golden heaps. Yet all was not lost. “The looters were good-hearted,” one of Asaad’s painters told me, explaining that they left the tools and machines behind, “so we could work again.” Because the machines are still there, many factory managers in Iraq say that it would take little for them to return to full production. They need emergency generators to cope with daily blackouts, and they need capital for parts and raw materials. If that happened, it would have tremendous implications for Iraq’s stalled reconstruction, because it would mean that many of the key materials needed to rebuild – cement and steel, bricks and furniture – could be produced inside the country.

But it hasn’t happened. Immediately after the nominal end of the war, Congress appropriated $2.5 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, followed by an additional $18.4 billion in October. Yet as of July 2004, Iraq’s state-owned factories had been pointedly excluded from the reconstruction contracts. Instead, the billions have all gone to Western companies, with most of the materials for the reconstruction imported at great expense from abroad.

With unemployment as high as 67 percent, the imported products and foreign workers flooding across the borders have become a source of tremendous resentment in Iraq and yet another open tap fueling the insurgency. And Iraqis don’t have to look far for reminders of this injustice; it’s on display in the most ubiquitous symbol of the occupation: the blast wall. The ten-foot-high slabs of reinforced concrete are everywhere in Iraq, separating the protected – the people in upscale hotels, luxury homes, military bases, and, of course, the Green Zone – from the unprotected and exposed. If that wasn’t enough, all the blast walls are imported, from Kurdistan, Turkey, or even farther afield, this despite the fact that Iraq was once a major manufacturer of cement, and could easily be again. There are seventeen state-owned cement factories across the country, but most are idle or working at only half capacity. According to the Ministry of Industry, not one of these factories has received a single contract to help with the reconstruction, even though they could produce the walls and meet other needs for cement at a greatly reduced cost. The CPA pays up to $1,000 per imported blast wall; local manufacturers say they could make them for $100. Minister Tofiq says there is a simple reason why the Americans refuse to help get Iraq’s cement factories running again: among those making the decision, “no one believes in the public sector.” *

[* Tofiq did say that several U.S. companies had expressed strong interest in buying the state-owned cement factories. This supports a widely-held belief in Iraq that there is a deliberate strategy to neglect the state firms so that they can be sold more cheaply – a practice known as “starve then sell.”]

This kind of ideological blindness has turned Iraq’s occupiers into prisoners of their own policies, hiding behind walls that, by their very existence, fuel the rage at the U.S. presence, thereby feeding the need for more walls. In Baghdad the concrete barriers have been given a popular nickname: Bremer walls.

As the insurgency grew, it soon became clear that if Bremer went ahead with his plans to sell off the state companies, it could worsen the violence. There was no question that privatization would require layoffs: the Ministry of Industry estimates that roughly 145,000 workers would have to be fired to make the firms desirable to investors, with each of those workers supporting, on average, five family members. For Iraq’s besieged occupiers the question was: Would these shock-therapy casualties accept their fate or would they rebel?

The answer arrived, in rather dramatic fashion, at one of the largest state-owned companies, the General Company for Vegetable Oils. The complex of six factories produces cooking oil, hand soap, laundry detergent, shaving cream, and shampoo. At least that is what I was told by a receptionist who gave me glossy brochures and calendars boasting of “modern instruments” and “the latest and most up to date developments in the field of industry.” But when I approached the soap factory, I discovered a group of workers sleeping outside a darkened building. Our guide rushed ahead, shouting something to a woman in a white lab coat, and suddenly the factory scrambled into activity: lights switched on, motors revved up, and workers – still blinking off sleep – began filling two-liter plastic bottles with pale blue Zahi brand dishwashing liquid.

I asked Nada Ahmed, the woman in the white coat, why the factory wasn’t working a few minutes before. She explained that they have only enough electricity and materials to run the machines for a couple of hours a day, but when guests arrive – would-be investors, ministry officials, journalists – they get them going. “For show,” she explained. Behind us, a dozen bulky machines sat idle, covered in sheets of dusty plastic and secured with duct tape.

In one dark corner of the plant, we came across an old man hunched over a sack filled with white plastic caps. With a thin metal blade lodged in a wedge of wax, he carefully whittled down the edges of each cap, leaving a pile of shavings at his feet. “We don’t have the spare part for the proper mold, so we have to cut them by hand,” his supervisor explained apologetically. “We haven’t received any parts from Germany since the sanctions began.” I noticed that even on the assembly lines that were nominally working there was almost no mechanization: bottles were held under spouts by hand because conveyor belts don’t convey, lids once snapped on by machines were being hammered in place with wooden mallets. Even the water for the factory was drawn from an outdoor well, hoisted by hand, and carried inside.

The solution proposed by the U.S. occupiers was not to fix the plant but to sell it, and so when Bremer announced the privatization auction back in June 2003 this was among the first companies mentioned. Yet when I visited the factory in March, nobody wanted to talk about the privatization plan; the mere mention of the word inside the plant inspired awkward silences and meaningful glances. This seemed an unnatural amount of subtext for a soap factory, and I tried to get to the bottom of it when I interviewed the assistant manager. But the interview itself was equally odd: I had spent half a week setting it up, submitting written questions for approval, getting a signed letter of permission from the minister of industry, being questioned and searched several times. But when I finally began the interview, the assistant manager refused to tell me his name or let me record the conversation. “Any manager mentioned in the press is attacked afterwards,” he said. And when I asked whether the company was being sold, he gave this oblique response. “If the decision was up to the workers, they are against privatization; but if it’s up to the high ranking officials and government, then privatization is an order and orders must be followed.”

I left the plant feeling that I knew less than when I’d arrived. But on the way out of the gates, a young security guard handed my translator a note. He wanted us to meet him after work at a nearby restaurant, “to find out what is really going on with privatization.” His name was Mahmud, and he was a twenty-five-year-old with a neat beard and big black eyes. (For his safety, I have omitted his last name.) His story began in July, a few weeks after Bremer’s privatization announcement. The company’s manager, on his way to work, was shot to death. Press reports speculated that the manager was murdered because he was in favor of privatizing the plant, but Mahmud was convinced that he was killed because he opposed the plan. “He would never have sold the factories like the Americans want. That’s why they killed him.”

The dead man was replaced by a new manager, Mudhfar Ja’far. Shortly after taking over, Ja’far called a meeting with ministry officials to discuss selling off the soap factory, which would involve laying off two thirds of its employees. Guarding that meeting were several security officers from the plant. They listened closely to Ja’far’s plans and promptly reported the alarming news to their coworkers. “We were shocked,” Mahmud recalled. “If the private sector buys our company, the first thing they would do is reduced the staff to make more money. And we will be forced into a very hard destiny, because the factory is our only way of living.”

Frightened by this prospect, a group of seventeen workers, including Mahmud, marched into Ja’far’s office to confront him on what they had heard. “Unfortunately, he wasn’t there, only the assistant manager, the one you met,” Mahmud told me. A fight broke out: one worker struck the assistant manager, and a bodyguard fired three shots at the workers. The crowd then attacked the bodyguard, took his gun, and, Mahmud said, “stabbed him with a knife in the back three times. He spent a month in the hospital.” In January there was even more violence. On their way to work, Ja’far, the manager, and his son were shot and badly injured. Mahmud told me he had no idea who was behind the attack, but I was starting to understand why factory managers in Iraq try to keep a low profile.

At the end of our meeting, I asked Mahmud what would happen if the plant was sold despite the workers’ objections. “There are two choices,” he said, looking me in the eye and smiling kindly. “Either we will set the factory on fire and let the flames devour it to the ground, or we will blow ourselves up inside of it. But it will not be privatized.”

If there ever was a moment when Iraqis were too disoriented to resist shock therapy, that moment has definitely passed. Labor relations, like everything else in Iraq, has become a blood sport. The violence on the streets howls at the gates of the factories, threatening to engulf them. Workers fear job loss as a death sentence, and managers, in turn, fear their workers, a fact that makes privatization distinctly more complicated than the neocons foresaw.*

[* It is in Basra where the connections between economic reforms and the rise of the resistance was put in starkest terms. In December the union representing oil workers was negotiating with the Oil Ministry for a salary increase. Getting nowhere, the workers offered the ministry a simple choice: increase their paltry salaries or they would all join the armed resistance. They received a substantial raise.]

As I left the meeting with Mahmud, I got word that there was a major demonstration outside the CPA headquarters. Supporters of the radical young cleric Moqtada al Sadr were protesting the closing of their newspaper, al Hawza, by military police. The CPA accused al Hawza of publishing “false articles” that could “pose the real threat of violence.” As an example, it cited an article that claimed Bremer “is pursuing a policy of starving the Iraqi people to make them preoccupied with procuring their daily bread so they do not have the chance to demand their political and individual freedoms.” To me it sounded less like hate literature than a concise summary of Milton Friedman’s recipe for shock therapy.

A few days before the newspaper was shut down, I had gone to Kufa during Friday prayers to listen to al Sadr at his mosque. He had launched into a tirade against Bremer’s newly signed interim constitution, calling it “an unjust, terrorist document.” The message of the sermon was clear: Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani may have backed down on the constitution, but al Sadr and his supporters were still determined to fight it – and if they succeeded they would sabotage the neocons’ careful plan to saddle Iraq’s next government with their “wish list” of laws. With the closing of the newspaper, Bremer was giving al Sadr his response: he wasn’t negotiating with this young upstart; he’d rather take him out with force.

When I arrived at the demonstration, the streets were filled with men dressed in black, the soon-to-be legendary Mahdi Army. It struck me that if Mahmud lost his security guard job at the soap factory, he could be one of them. That’s who al Sadr’s foot soldiers are: the young men who have been shut out of the neocons’ grand plans for Iraq, who see no possibilities for work, and whose neighborhoods have seen none of the promised reconstruction. Bremer has failed these young men, and everywhere that he has failed, Moqtada al Sadr has cannily set out to succeed. In Shia slums from Baghdad to Basra, a network of Sadr Centers coordinate a kind of shadow reconstruction. Funded through donations, the centers dispatch electricians to fix power and phone lines, organize local garbage collection, set up emergency generators, run blood drives, direct traffic where the streetlights don’t work. And yes, they organize militias too. Al Sadr took Bremer’s economic casualties, dressed them in black, and gave them rusty Kalashnikovs. His militiamen protected the mosques and the state factories when the occupation authorities did not, but in some areas they also went further, zealously enforcing Islamic law by torching liquor stores and terrorizing women without the veil. Indeed, the astronomical rise of the brand of religious fundamentalism that al Sadr represents is another kind of blowback from Bremer’s shock therapy: if the reconstruction had provided jobs, security, and services to Iraqis, al Sadr would have been deprived of both his mission and many of his newfound followers.

At the same time as al Sadr’s followers were shouting “Down with America” outside the Green Zone, something was happening in another part of the country that would change everything. Four American mercenary soldiers were killed in Fallujah, their charred and dismembered bodies hung like trophies over the Euphrates. The attacks would prove a devastating blow for the neocons, one from which they would never recover. With these images, investing in Iraq suddenly didn’t look anything like a capitalist dream; it looked like a macabre nightmare made real.

The day I left Baghdad was the worst yet. Fallujah was under siege and Brig. Gen. Kimmitt was threatening to “destroy the al-Mahdi army.” By the end, roughly 2,000 Iraqis were killed in those twin campaigns. I was dropped off at a security checkpoint several miles from the airport, then loaded onto a bus jammed with contractors lugging hastily packed bags. Although no one was calling it one, this was an evacuation: over the next week 1,500 contractors left Iraq, and some governments began airlifting their citizens out of the country. On the bus no one spoke; we all just listened to the mortar fire, craning our necks to see the red glow. A guy carrying a KPMG briefcase decided to lighten things up. “So is there business class on this flight?” he asked the silent bus. From the back, somebody called out, “Not yet.”

Indeed, it may be quite a while before business class truly arrives in Iraq. When we landed in Amman, we learned that we had gotten out just in time. That morning three Japanese civilians were kidnapped and their captors were threatening to burn them alive. Two days later Nicholas Berg went missing and was not seen again until the snuff film surfaced of his beheading, an even more terrifying message for U.S. contractors than the charred bodies in Fallujah. These were the start of a wave of kidnappings and killings of foreigners, most of them businesspeople, from a rainbow of nations: South Korea, Italy, China, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey. By the end of June more than ninety contractors were reported dead in Iraq. When seven Turkish contractors were kidnapped in June, their captors asked the “company to cancel all contracts and pull out employees from Iraq.” Many insurance companies stopped selling life insurance to contractors, and others began to charge premiums as high as $10,000 a week for a single Western executive – the same price some insurgents reportedly pay for a dead American.

For their part, the organizers of DBX, the historic Baghdad trade fair, decided to relocate to the lovely tourist city of Diyarbakir in Turkey, “just 250 km from the Iraqi border.” An Iraqi landscape, only without those frightening Iraqis. Three weeks later just fifteen people showed up for a Commerce Department conference in Lansing, Michigan, on investing in Iraq. Its host, Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, tried to reassure his skeptical audience by saying that Iraq is “like a rough neighborhood anywhere in America.” The foreign investors, the ones who were offered every imaginable free-market enticement, are clearly not convinced; there is still no sign of them. Keith Crane, a senior economist at the Rand Corporation who has worked for the CPA, put it bluntly: “I don’t believe the board of a multinational company could approve a major investment in this environment. If people are shooting at each other, it’s just difficult to do business.” Hamid Jassim Khamis, the manager of the largest soft-drink bottling plant in the region, told me he can’t find any investors, even though he landed the exclusive rights to produce Pepsi in central Iraq. “A lot of people have approached us to invest in the factory, but people are really hesitating now.” Khamis said he couldn’t blame the; in five months he has survived an attempted assassination, a carjacking, two bombs planted at the entrance of his factory, and the kidnapping of his son.

Despite having been granted the first license for a foreign bank to operate in Iraq in forty years, HSBC still hasn’t opened any branches, a decision that may mean losing the coveted license altogether. Procter & Gamble has put its joint venture on hold, and so has General Motors. The U.S. financial backers of the Starwood luxury hotel and multiplex have gotten cold feet, and Siemens AG has pulled most staff from Iraq. The bell hasn’t rung yet at the Baghdad Stock Exchange – in fact you can’t even use credit cards in Iraq’s cash-only economy. New Bridge Strategies, the company that had gushed back in October about how “a Wal-Mart could take over the country,” is sounding distinctly humbled. “McDonald’s is not opening anytime soon,” company partner Ed Rogers told the Washington Post. Neither is Wal-Mart. The Financial Times has declared Iraq “the most dangerous place in the world in which to do business.” It’s quite an accomplishment: in trying to design the best place in the world to do business, the neocons have managed to create the worst, the most eloquent indictment yet of the guiding logic behind deregulated free markets.

The violence has not just kept investors out; it also forced Bremer, before he left, to abandon many of his central economic policies. Privatization of the state companies is off the table; instead, several of the state companies have been offered up for lease, but only if the investor agrees not to lay off a single employee. Thousands of the state workers that Bremer fired have been rehired, and significant raises have been handed out in the public sector as a whole. Plans to do away with the food-ration program have also been scrapped – it just doesn’t seem like a good time to deny millions of Iraqis the only nutrition on which they can depend.

The final blow to the neocon dream came in the weeks before the handover. The White House and the CPA were rushing to get the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution endorsing their handover plan. They had twisted arms to give the top job to former CIA agent Iyad Allawi, a move that will ensure that Iraq becomes, at the very least, the coaling station for U.S. troops that Jay Garner originally envisioned. But if major corporate investors were going to come to Iraq in the future, they would need a stronger guarantee that Bremer’s economic laws would stick. There was only one way of doing that: the Security Council resolution had to ratify the interim constitution, which locked in Bremer’s laws for the duration of the interim government. But al Sistani once again objected, this time unequivocally, saying that the constitution has been “rejected by the majority of the Iraqi people.” On June 8 the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution that endorsed the handover plan but made absolutely no reference to the constitution. In the face of this far-reaching defeat, George W. Bush celebrated the resolution as a historic victory, one that came just in time for an election trail photo op at the G-8 Summit in Georgia.

With Bremer’s laws in limbo, Iraqi ministers are already talking openly about breaking contracts signed by the CPA. Citigroup’s loan scheme has been rejected as a misuse of Iraq’s oil revenues. Iraq’s communication minister is threatening to renegotiate contracts with the three communications firms providing the country with its disastrously poor cell phone service. And the Lebanese and U.S. companies hired to run the state television network have been informed that they could lose their licenses because they are not Iraqi. “We will see if we can change the contract,” Hamid al-Kifaey, spokesperson for the Governing Council, said in May. “They have no idea about Iraq.” For most investors, this complete lack of legal certainty simply makes Iraq too great a risk.

But while the Iraqi resistance has managed to scare off the first wave of corporate raiders, there’s little doubt that they will return. Whatever form the next Iraqi government takes – nationalist, Islamist, or free market – it will inherit a crushing $120 billion debt. Then, as in all poor countries around the world, men in dark blue suits from the IMF will appear at the door, bearing loans and promises of economic boom, provided that certain structural adjustments are made, which will, of course, be rather painful at first but well worth the sacrifice in the end. In fact, the process has already begun: the IMF is poised to approve loans worth $2.5-$4.25 billion, pending agreement on the conditions. After an endless succession of courageous last stands and far too many lost lives, Iraq will become a poor nation like any other, with politicians determined to introduce policies rejected by the vast majority of the population, and all the imperfect compromises that will entail. The free market will no doubt come to Iraq, but the neoconservative dream of transforming the country into a free-market utopia has already died, a casualty of a greater dream – a second term for George W. Bush.

The great historical irony of the catastrophe unfolding in Iraq is that the shock-therapy reforms that were supposed to create an economic boom that would rebuild the country have instead fueled a resistance that ultimately made reconstruction impossible. Bremer’s reforms unleashed forces that the neocons neither predicted nor could hope to control, from armed insurrections inside factories to tens of thousands of unemployed young men arming themselves. These forces have transformed Year Zero in Iraq into the mirror opposite of what the neocons envisioned: not a corporate utopia but a ghoulish dystopia, where going to a simple business meeting can get you lynched, burned alive, or beheaded. These dangers are so great that in Iraq global capitalism has retreated, at least for now. For the neocons, this must be a shocking development: their ideological belief in greed turns out to be stronger than greed itself.

Iraq was to the neocons what Afghanistan was to the Taliban: the one place on Earth where they could force everyone to live by the most literal, unyielding interpretation of their sacred texts. One would think that the bloody results of this experiment would inspire a crisis of faith: in the country where they had absolute free reign, where there was no local government to blame, where economic reforms were introduced at their most shocking and most perfect, they created, instead of a model free market, a failed state no right-thinking investor would touch. And yet the Green Zone neocons and their masters in Washington are no more likely to reexamine their core beliefs than the Taliban mullahs were inclined to search their souls when their Islamic state slid into a debauched Hades of opium and sex slavery. When facts threaten true believers, they simply close their eyes and pray harder.

Which is precisely what Thomas Foley has been doing. The former head of “private sector development” has left Iraq, a country he had described as “the mother of all turnarounds,” and has accepted another turnaround job, as co-chair of George Bush’s re-election committee in Connecticut. On April 30 in Washington he addressed a crowd of entrepreneurs about business prospects in Baghdad. It was a tough day to be giving an upbeat speech: that morning the first photographs had appeared out of Abu Ghraib, including one of a hooded prisoner with electrical wires attached to his hands. This was another kind of shock therapy, far more literal than the one Foley had helped to administer, but not entirely unconnected. “Whatever you’re seeing, it’s not as bad as it appears,” Foley told the crowd. “You just need to accept that on faith.”

[Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo and writer/producer of The Take, a new documentary on Argentina`s occupied factories]

Copyright: Harper`s Magazine

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Video: U.S. Military Vehicle Blown Up In Fallujah

A portion of this video was broadcast on CTV.ca on 09/19/04

I have been unable to find any U.S. news reports of the incident. It is difficult to imagine that anyone survived.

Es scheint ein Video von der Tätergruppe zu sein, weil sie erst den Sprengkörper zeigen.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/C20254.mpg

[Joerver]

Nun gehts wieder.

POLITICS-U.S.:
Kerry Delivers Scathing Critique of Iraq War

Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON, Sep 20 (IPS) - In his sharpest attack on U.S. policy on Iraq to date, Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry Monday accused President George W. Bush of having made ”a series of catastrophic decisions” that has created a ”crisis of historic proportions” both in Iraq and in the wider ”war on terror”.

Speaking at New York University, just blocks from ”Ground Zero” of the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center, Kerry said Bush should immediately implement a four-part plan to redress the mistakes lest the the current situation, which he characterised as a ”mess”, become irreversible, no matter who is elected president.

The plan -- which calls for persuading the U.N. and U.S. allies to assume more responsiblity in Iraq, accelerating and internationalising training of Iraqi forces, redesigning the reconstruction process to reduce unemployment and enhance Iraqi participation, and recruiting a protection force for U.N. election officials -- should permit Washington to begin withdrawing troops as early as next summer and complete their withdrawal within the next four years, he said.

”This is what I would do as president today,” he said. ”But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.”

Kerry`s remarks, which were clearly designed to sharpen his position on Iraq and put Bush on the defensive, came at the start of a week which the White House had planned to use to highlight his international leadership, particularly on Iraq.

On Tuesday, Bush is scheduled to address the U.N. General Assembly. His speech will be designed to rally international support for the U.S.-led ”war on terror” and to frame the current conflict in Iraq as a central part of that war.

On Thursday, Bush will greet interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi at the White House in a joint appearance at which Allawi is expected to express gratitude for Bush`s decision to invade Iraq and oust former President Saddam Hussein, and urge strong U.S. support for elections that are still scheduled for January, despite a growing tide of opinion, even among U.S. officials, that the country will not be ready.

In a potentially important reversal for Bush, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, whose organisation is supposed to play a key role in organising and carrying out the polling, said late last week that he did not see how the elections could take place unless the security situation improves substantially. He also said for the first time that he thought the original invasion of Iraq was ”illegal” under the U.N. Charter, an observation that provoked widespread contempt and anger among Republicans and sympathetic media over the weekend.

Kerry`s assault on Bush`s Iraq policy also came amid indications that the presidential race, despite the Democrat`s generally lack-lustre performance, has tightened further. Bush, who emerged from the Republican Convention in New York City earlier this month with a substantial lead, is now ahead by a few percentage points, but still within the margin of error, according to most polls.

According to the same polls, Iraq and the broader war against terror are playing a crucial role in the standings of the two candidates. While Kerry leads comfortably on issues such as the economy, jobs, and health care, the two are closer on Iraq, while Bush leads by a substantial margin on the question of who can best conduct the ”war on terror” and protect national security more generally.

For that reason, the Bush campaign has gone all out to depict the Iraq war as part of the war on terror, hoping that, if they succeed, whatever negative opinion has built up over the war -- and polls showed beginning four months ago that more citizens believe it was a mistake to go to war than those who believe it was a good idea -- can be neutralised by its broader identification with Bush`s leadership in the anti-terror campaign.

The Kerry campaign has appeared ambivalent about Iraq as an issue, primarily because the senator voted in Oct. 2002 to give Bush the authority to wage war under certain conditions. The fact that he became harshly critical of the war beginning earlier this year has been used by the Bush campaign as an opportunity to depict Kerry as an indecisive ”flip-flopper”, a tactic that has been remarkably successful, according to the latest opinion polls.

Kerry`s often-rambling explanations of both his original decision to back the war resolution and his subsequent decision to vote against a huge appropriation to fund the occupation actually fuelled the Republican`s efforts to depict him as, in the word of one Washington veteran, a ”typical mushhead Senator” in contrast to the strong and decisive leadership of the incumbent.

As a result, the Kerry campaign two weeks ago tentatively decided to soft-pedal Iraq as the dominant issue in the campaign and move his focus to the economy and other domestic issues.

But that decision appears to have been reversed over the past week, particularly in light of the sharp escalation of violence and its toll on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, as well as the sudden speculation about whether the next benchmark in the ”transition” in Iraq -- the January elections -- can indeed be reached on schedule.

The decision to return the campaign`s focus to Iraq was also propelled by the fact that Bush`s fellow-Republications were themselves making increasingly outspoken attacks on Iraq policy, particularly in reaction to the increasingly optimistic rhetoric of Bush and his top aides.

”The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we`re winning,” said Nebraska Republican and former Vietnam veteran Sen. Chuck Hagel during a widely noted hearing last week. ”Right now we are not winning. Things are getting worse.”

In unusually harsh language, the normally bland and ultra- polite Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, joined in, complaining about the ”dancing-in-the-street crowd” within the administration, notably the vice president`s office and Pentagon political appointees, for unrealistic assumptions about how Iraqis would greet a U.S. occupation.

On Sunday, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who has strongly backed Bush`s re-election despite a close friendship with Kerry, also noted that the administration had made ”serious mistakes” in Iraq due mostly to its failure to deploy more troops there. Yet another influential Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham, assailed Bush for being ”stubborn about troops. We do not need to paint a rosy scenario for the American people,” he said.

The Republican attacks were also provoked by a series of leaks of classified intelligence documents that depicted a far bleaker outlook in Iraq than what Bush was offering publicly. Both the leaks and the Republican attacks suddenly made Bush appear a great deal more vulnerable on Iraq than just seven days before.

In his address Monday, Kerry deliberately echoed many of the Republicans` complaints, even citing Hagel, Lugar and McCain by name.

Bush was ”in denial”, he said, noting that before, during, and after the war, ”he hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military”. The result, he declared, included ”colossal errors of judgement” during and after the war for which no one was held accountable. ”In fact the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq”, he said, ”were the ones who told the truth”.

Despite the fact that the major justifications for the war -- such as Hussein`s alleged buildup of weapons of mass destruction and his ties to al Qaeda -- have since turned out to have had little or no factual basis, ”President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious?” Kerry asked.

Now, he said, ”we have a mess on our hands (in Iraq). But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America`s security for years to come,” he said, calling for a ”fresh start”.

First, Kerry called for Bush to convene a summit meeting of the world`s major powers and Iraq`s neighbours during the General Assembly this week to offer to fully include them in the reconstruction process in exchange for peacekeeping troops, training of Iraqi security personnel, and securing Iraq`s borders.

Second, he called for the administration to ”get serious about training Iraqi security forces”, in part by recruiting thousands of trainers from U.S. allies and encouraging them to also open training centres in their own countries.

Third, Kerry called for a reconstruction plan designed to bring ”tangible benefits to the Iraqi people” by using ”more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton”. In addition, ”he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort”.

Finally, Bush should take ”immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year”, according to Kerry, who noted that a resolution authorising a protection force for U.N. electoral monitors was approved by the Security Council in the spring. ”Three months later, not a single country has answered that call, and the president acts as if it doesn`t matter.”

While it ”will not be easy” to recruit such a mission now, Kerry noted, ”even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N.”

”George Bush has no strategy for Iraq,” he said. ”I do.” (END/2004)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
Informed Comment
[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Thoughts on the Middle East, History,and Religion
[/TABLE][Table align=left]

[/TABLE]

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Bush Taunts Kerry

I just heard President Bush taunt John Kerry for suggesting that the US was not safer because Saddam Hussein was deposed, and for saying that the US was in fact less safe because of the chaos in Iraq.

Bush attempted to turn this statement around and suggest that Kerry was preferring dictatorship to democracy.

Iraq, however, does not have a democracy, and cannot possibly have a democracy any time soon because of events such as those described below (and they are only 24 hours` worth)-- that is, because of a failed state and a hot guerrilla war.

Moreover, if Mr. Bush abhors dictatorships so much, why hasn`t he overthrown that in China? North Korea? Zimbabwe? Or, say, Egypt? There are enormous numbers of dictatorships in the world. Is the US to overthrow them all? Putin`s decision to appoint provincial governors rather than allowing them to be elected (as though Bush should appoint the governors of US states) is a step toward dictatorship. Shall we have a war with Russia over it?

Surely the conditions under which the Palestinians live in the West Bank are a form of dictatorship (they haven`t voted for their Israeli military rulers). Why not invade the West Bank and liberate the Palestinians?

Obviously, what was obnoxious to the American people about Saddam Hussein was not that he was a dictator. Those are a dime a dozen and not usually worth $200 billion and thousands of lives. It is that he was supposedly dangerous to the US because, as Bush alleged, he was trying to develop an atomic bomb. But whatever nuclear program he had was so primitive as not to be worth mentioning, and there is no evidence that Saddam posed any threat at all to the United States` homeland, or would have in his lifetime.

I have a sinking feeling that the American public may like Bush`s cynical misuse of Wilsonian idealism precisely because it covers the embarrassment of their having gone to war, killed perhaps 25,000 people, and made a perfect mess of the Persian Gulf region, all out of a kind of paranoia fed by dirty tricks and bad intelligence. And, maybe they have to vote for Bush to cover the embarrassment of having elected him in the first place.

How deep a hole are they going to dig themselves in order to get out of the bright sunlight of so much embarrassment?

posted by Juan @ [url9/21/2004 06:10:52 AM]http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109575483888846455[/url]

The Case of the Three Dead Clerics

Al-Zaman and Al-Jazeerah.net say that two important figures in the Sunni fundamentalist Association of Muslim Scholars [Board of Muslim Clerics] were assassinated on Sunday and Monday.

Hazim al-Zaidi was found in front of the Sajjad Mosque in Sadr City, a largely Shiite area. Al-Zaidi had been imam to the small Sunni community in East Baghdad. He was kidnapped Sunday, then released, but then showed up dead. Another AMS cleric, Shaikh Muhammad Jadu`, was cut down as he left the al-Kawthar Mosque in al-Bayya`, west Baghdad, a Sunni area.

Likewise, on Monday Abu Jihad al-Zamili, a commander in the Badr Corps, the paramilitary of the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was killed by assassins along with his wife as he was driving about 20 km. north of Karbala.

In other news, guerrillas detonated a car bomb in Mosul, killing 3 persons. Monotheism and Holy War (al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad) took credit for beheading an American, and for taking 10 Turkish truck drivers hostage. Also in Mosul, guerrillas fired on a Turkish Red Crescent team heading to help victims of the fighting in Tal Afar, wounding five Turks. Guerrillas killed an American soldier near Sharqat in the Sunni Arab heartland. And, as usual, the US used tanks and warplanes to bomb Fallujah, with the number of resulting casualties under dispute (the US says it killed 2, other sources say 3). al-Hayat says that on Sunday evening 3 officers in the Iraqi National Guard were killed by a rocket propelled grenade. In Beiji, two corpses were discovered, of Iraqis who worked at the nearby American military base.

The Association of Muslim Scholars or AMS, headed by Sheikh Hareth al-Dhari, has in some instances been linked to militants, but usually has maintained enough independence of them to act as a broker between them and the Baghdad government. The AMS has announced that it will boycott the elections scheduled for January. It has emerged as the most respected and influential of the Sunni Muslim religious parties in Iraq, and seems to be the Sunnis` answer to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

The location of the murder of the Sunni cleric Hazim al-Zaidi, in Shiite Sadr City, might cast suspicion on the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr, or at least some militant faction within it. There has in fact been friction between Sadrists and Sunnis in the past year and a half. The Sadrists have occupied Sunni mosques in the Shiite south, for instance, and at one point seemed poised to usurp most Sunni endowment property in Basra, provoking a demonstration some 15,000 strong among minority Sunnis in that southern city in summer of 2003. That Zaidi was the leader of the Sunnis in Sadr City may have made his activities provocative to the intensely nativist Sadr movement.

But since the simultaneous siege of Fallujah and Najaf in spring of 2004 by the US, the Sunni fundamentalists or Salafis and the Sadrist Shiites had appeared to make up. They sent each other food aid, and the Sunnis put up posters of Muqtada al-Sadr in Fallujah (ordinarily Sunni fundamentalists look at Shiites as a sort of polytheistic heresy no closer to true Islam than is Hinduism). So it would be strange if the Sadrists, who are still under pressure from the US, should suddenly decide to pick a fight with the Sunnis. Or at least it would be strange if this murder were ordered by the top clerics of the Sadr Movement.

Since the second victim, Shaikih Jadu`, was killed in a Sunni area west of Baghdad, moreover, whoever did the deed is not based only in Shiite Sadr City, and so the argument for a Sadrist perpetrator is weakened.

Al-Hayat notes that the Sadr Movement leaders roundly condemned the killing of the clerics. They were buried in Baqubah, and Sadrists accompanied the funeral procession. If they did it, they are certainly brazen.

On the other hand, the Sadrists blame the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq for spying on them for the Americans in Najaf (so the Sadrists say), and the Mahdi Army has serious issues with the Badr Corps.

The Baathists have been behind a lot of assassinations of emerging politicians in Iraq who might benefit from the end of the Baath and the emergence of a new Iraq. I personally believe that the Baath got Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim on Aug. 29, 2003. And that is who I would blame for the assassination of Aqilah al-Hashimi, a woman member of the Interim Governing Council, in fall of the same year. So it is possible that militantly secular, ultra-nationalist Baathists might be attempting to make sure that AMS does not benefit from the destruction of the Baath party and the marginalization of former Baathists.

The Baathists hate the Badr Corps, which used to carry out terrorist actions against them from Iran in the 1990s.

Still, the Baathists and the Sunni fundamentalists seem to have forged at least a tacit alliance in places like Fallujah and Ramadi, so it is a little odd that they should take out after Sunni leaders at this juncture. It is less odd that they should have killed al-Zamili, the Shiite Badr Corps commander.

The other possibility is Monotheism and Holy War, the terrorist organization based in Jordan and Germany that began as a rival to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The letter attributed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi last January by the CIA spoke of attempting to provoke Sunni-Shiite warfare as a way to ensure that American-dominated Iraq was destabilized. I dislike the US official tendency to blame most violence in Iraq on Zarqawi and other outsiders. I think 99% of it is Iraqi in character. But killing Shaikh al-Zaidi right in front of a Shiite mosque, or dumping his body there, does seem to be a deliberate provocation of the sort Tawhid earlier spoke of.

Likewise, it might have been hoped that the Shiites would blame Sunnis for al-Zamili`s death, just as it would have been obvious that Sunnis would blame Shiites for al-Zaidi`s.

A conspiracy theory might cast suspicion on the Allawi government, which would potentially benefit from driving a wedge between AMS and the Sadrists, and from weakening the Badr Corps. But I don`t think Sunni-Shiite riots would help the stability of Iraq, and can`t imagine Allawi is so foolish as to risk provoking them.

So, I think the murders were either done by more militant Sadrists or by Monotheism and Holy War. Of course, it is possible that the three murders were not all commited by the same group, but I suspect they were. And I would lean toward blaming Tawhid.

Meanwhile, Borzou Daragahi of AP argues that virtually all Sunni clerics, and not just AMS, preach jihad against the Americans. He notes that they do not always come out and say it, but that they are skillful in weaving pro-jihad statements into their sermons through allusion and intimation. He says:


` They cite a long litany of American missteps: everything from the stalled reconstruction effort, the killing of innocent Iraqis during combat operations and the abuse and sexual humiliation of prisoners to soldiers entering mosques without taking off their boots, entering women`s quarters during house raids and patting-down of female detainees.

They also say they believe that force is the only language the Americans understand, that Americans refuse to listen to Iraqis` peaceful demands.

Were it not for the resistance throughout the Sunni triangle following last year`s war, they say, the now-dissolved 25-member Iraqi Governing Council would not have been established; were it not for the April uprisings in Fallujah and the Shi`ite south, Mr Allawi`s interim government would not have been established; and were it not for the ongoing violence in Baghdad and the rest of the country, elections would not be set in January.

`Those who called for political solutions have been repeatedly embarrassed and outdone by those wanting military solutions,` says Prof Bashar. `



Actually, if what the Sunni militants wanted was only elections, they could have had that without blowing so many things up. It seems to me that they were assured when Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani brought over 100,000 protesters into the streets of Baghdad in January.

I don`t think they primarily want elections, which would bring the Shiites and Kurds to power. I think they want the Americans gone so as to find a way to regain Sunni Arab supremacy in the country. That actually makes them more dangerous, because if that is their motive then they will likely go on blowing up things for a long time to come. It is highly unlikely that they can put the Shiites back in a box. So, even if the Iraqi public rises up and gets rid of the Americans, thereafter they are likely to turn on one another unless the Sunni Arabs can throw up leaders that can deal with the new situation in which they are a minority. They haven`t given good evidence of an ability to do that as yet.

posted by Juan @ [url9/21/2004 06:03:04 AM]http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109574019897377253[/url]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 239 Bush 256

So schnell geht das, bei Berücksichtigung der unterschiedlichtsten Polls.
Gestern noch: Kerry 211 Bush 327
[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep21.html
News from the Votemaster

Lots of polls today, as promised yesterday. Seventeen in all. Zogby has released polls in 16 battleground states and Survey USA has a very surprising one in Maryland, showing Bush and Kerry tied at 48% each. Up until now Maryland has been strongly Democratic. It remains to be seen if this result is confirmed by other pollsters.

Of the 16 battleground states, Zogby has Kerry ahead in 11 and Bush ahead in 5. Since I round the numbers to integers, my result is 9 states for Kerry, 5 states for Bush, with Florida, and Arkansas tied, even though Kerry is fractionally ahead in both. The net effect is that Kerry has closed the gap in the electoral college from a Bush lead of 116 yesterday to only 17 today, a net gain of 99 votes in the electoral college.

How did this happen? Kerry picked up Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin for a net gain of 76 electoral votes, Bush lost 33 in Arkansas and Florida, and Kerry lost 10 in Maryland. The other states polled didn`t switch candidates. But as usual, note that states with a white core on the map are essentially tossups, no matter what color the border is.

What is becoming apparently over time is that Zogby polls tend to favor Kerry, Gallup and Strategic Vision vision polls tend to favor Bush, and the rest are somewhere in between. It is more likely that different methodologies are at work here than that somebody has his thumb on the scale. Gallup normalizes the number of Republicans in the sample to 40%. Zogby doesn`t normalize for party preference at all. All of them correct for gender, age, race, and some other factors. Also, the pollsters differ in how they determine likely voters. The conclusion is seems to matter which pollster you use. I will continue to use them all unless they are caught red-handed with their hands in the cookie jar.

A reader suggested this nice guide for students explaining the ins and outs of where to register.

Someone else suggested that when registering voters, bring along a color printout of the map to show potential voters. While on the subject of printouts, if someone could design a nice 8.5" x 11" poster for the site that could be hung up at schools and offices, that would be appreciated. It should include the URL and map, of course, and other information and graphics. PDF or Postscript would be best, although I can convert Word to PDF if need be. Thanks.
Projected Senate: 47 Democrats, 52 Republicans, 1 independent To bookmark this page, type CTRL-D (Apple-D on Macintoshes). If you are visiting for the first time, welcome. This site has far more about the election than just the map. See the Welcome page for more details.

-- The votemaster


Mehr dazu über Wall StreetJournal:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battle…

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Saudis fall further from US grace
By Ashish Kumar Sen

WASHINGTON - On a September morning just over three years ago, as hijackers piloted airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, few would have guessed the catastrophic consequences for Saudi Arabia.

Washington`s "special relationship" with Riyadh has steadily unraveled since the revelation that 15 of the 19 hijackers were young Saudis.

Last week, the predominantly Sunni Muslim kingdom was placed on the US State Department`s list of "countries of particular concern" for its lack of religious freedom, putting it in the company of North Korea, Iran and Sudan.

In his State of the Union address in 2002, US President George W Bush included both Iran and North Korea on a three-nation "axis of evil". The third country was Iraq.

In a stinging indictment of Washington`s ally, ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom John Hanford said that in Saudi Arabia "the government rigidly mandates religious conformity. Non-Wahhabi, Sunni, Sunni Muslims, as well as Shi`ite and Sufi Muslims, face discrimination and sometimes severe restrictions on the practice of their faith."

The Bush administration, Danforth said, is concerned about the religious hate speeches that occur in some mosques, where Muslims, who are not of the Salafi faith, as well as other religions, "can be in for some pretty severe language".

"We`re concerned about the export of religious extremism and intolerance to other countries where religious freedom for Muslims is respected," he said. "There were frequent instances in which mosque preachers, whose salaries are paid for by the government, used violent language against non-Sunni Muslims and other religions in their sermons."

Riyadh`s inclusion on a list of "countries of particular concern" is just the latest setback in US-Saudi relations. US imports of Saudi oil have declined from levels in 2002. "What we`re seeing is not punishment or retribution, but a realization that the special relationship is not so special any more," James Placke, a senior associate at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said at a panel discussion in Washington last week.

He predicts that by the end of the year, Saudi Arabia will no longer be among the top five exporters of oil to the US.

In his book Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, Robert Baer, a former Central Intelligence Agency operative, makes the case that America`s dependence on Saudi oil has made it increasingly vulnerable to economic disaster and put it at risk for further acts of terrorism.

"Saudi Arabia is more and more an irrational state, a place that spawns global terrorism even as it succumbs to an ancient and deeply seated isolationism, a kingdom led by a royal family that can`t get out of the way of its own greed. Is this the fulcrum we want the global economy to balance on?" Baer asks.

For decades, the US has counted on the Saudis for cheap oil and lucrative business relationships, while providing in exchange a reliable market for the kingdom`s vast oil reserves.

"Of the Islamic oil states, none is more critical than Saudi Arabia, because (a) it sits on top of the largest proven reserves; (b) it serves as the market regulator for the entire global petroleum industry; and (c) it has the money, the political will, and the religious zeal to pursue control of the Arab Peninsula and Central Asia," writes Baer. "Like it or not, the US and Saudi Arabia are joined at the hip. Its future is our future.

"Washington`s answer for Saudi Arabia - apart from the mantra that nothing`s wrong - is the same as its answer for the rest of the Middle East: democracy will cure everything," Baer writes.

It is with this in mind that Washington is keeping a close eye on the kingdom`s first elections. Municipal elections will be held in November to fill half the seats on 178 municipal councils. The royal family will appoint the other half.

These elections are being seen as a first tentative step toward political reform in the kingdom - an absolute monarchy - that has never had elections since its creation in 1932.

Facing Islamic militants at home and increasing Western pressure for political reform, Saudi Arabia has few options left on the table.

"Give us the opportunity to do things at our own pace. We will change whatever we think is necessary for us to change," Osama bin Mohammed al-Kurdi, a member of Saudi Arabia`s majlis al-Shura (consultative council) that advises the royal family, said at the panel discussion on the pace of reform in the kingdom. "We don`t think we have to follow a certain model [of democracy] for it to be acceptable to others."

In an oblique criticism of Bush`s Greater Middle East Initiative, al-Kurdi said: "It is not for others to come in and decide to do mass reforms for the Middle East. Somehow I don`t think mass reforms will work." One of the most important things about reform is that "it has to come from the people", he added.

Pointing out that the unified kingdom is barely 70 years old, al-Kurdi said: "We still have a lot of things to do. I think one step at a time is the best way to go about it." Rather than internal security and democracy, he said Saudi Arabia was looking at "internal security and reform". "Let us learn from the experience of others. For God`s sake, the last thing we need now is skepticism," he added.

F Gregory Gause III, associate professor of political science at the University of Vermont, said a move toward national elections in Saudi Arabia would be "counterproductive from the point of view of both reform and stability". The most important thing the Saudis have to do is improve their internal-security situation, Gause said. "You can`t have anything approaching democracy if you don`t have internal security. The one is a prerequisite of the other. If you don`t have security you will not have people voting. You will not have people practicing politics."

Thomas Lippman, adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, said it is also crucial that Crown Prince Abdullah settle the succession issue and "let the Saudi people know that someone whom they trust, admire, respect and are willing to follow is waiting in line" to lead.

Pointing out that succession is one issue on which Saudis are least open to foreigners meddling, Gause said the primary task of the ruling family, if it is going to maintain itself, is to sustain an orderly succession that ensures order in the country. Saudis face "troubled waters", Gause said. Since King Abd-al-Aziz died, succession has gone through his sons. "At some point it will be inevitable that there will be no more of the king`s sons. And there is no template or precedent of how succession goes to the generation of grandsons."

Before the generation of sons disappears, Gause said, "it is incumbent upon them to have a procedure in line so that the generational transition is shown".

For now, Saudi Arabia is preparing for its tryst with democracy, which is by no means an inclusive one. Women will not be permitted to vote in the municipal elections. "From the mufti of Saudi Arabia to the most radical al-Qaeda type, the one issue that would unite them would be women`s issues - there are too many obstacles," Gause said. "If there is one issue that would mobilize guys with long beards to come out and vote for people who would stand against the general reform agenda in Saudi Arabia, it would be women`s issues."

Lippman agreed that Crown Prince Abdullah needed to be "particularly cautious about women`s issues because nothing else would more quickly alienate the religious leaders whose support he needs."

Al-Kurdi said: "Are [women] going to vote in the future? I think they will. When? I don`t know."

A US-style election would lead to an extremist government in Saudi Arabia, cautioned Placke, a former deputy assistant secretary of state.

Lippman, meanwhile, said that while he understood Americans` impatience with the slow pace of reform in Saudi Arabia, "it is useful to keep in mind that the unified kingdom is 73 years old. Where were we 73 years after the adoption of our constitution? We were preparing to fight a Civil War over slavery that had sustained the economy. We were busy wiping out our indigenous population, and women couldn`t vote.

"It is useful for Americans to evaluate the progress of reform in Saudi Arabia in the context of the way real societies work," Lippman added, "not the way we`d like them to work."

Ashish Kumar Sen is a Washington, DC-based journalist.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact [e-mail] for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
KERRY LOSING SUPPORT AMONG AL-QAEDA OPERATIVES

New Poll Contradicts Hastert’s Claims

One day after House Speaker Dennis Hastert told an audience that al-Qaeda terror operatives would rather see John Kerry in the White House than President George W. Bush, a new poll of al-Qaeda terrorists shows the international terror group evenly split between the two candidates.

In a poll of likely al-Qaeda madmen, 48% supported Mr. Kerry, 48% supported Mr. Bush, and 2% favored independent candidate Ralph Nader.

The remaining 2% said they were undecided as to which infidel would most benefit a global jihad.

Rockwell Pritchard, who conducted the survey for the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, said that contrary to Mr. Hastert’s claims, the race for the support of Osama bin Laden’s terror network is now “too close to call.”

“Al-Qaeda may have slightly favored John Kerry earlier in the race, but then came the whole Swift Boat thing,” Mr. Pritchard said. “Ever since those ads started airing we’ve seen a steady erosion of support among likely madmen.”

But Mr. Pritchard cautioned that Mr. Kerry could still “turn things around” with the international terror network between now and Election Day.

“John Kerry just needs to do a better job of articulating why a Kerry administration would be good for al-Qaeda,” Mr. Pritchard said. “That’s why these debates will be so crucial.”

On the positive side, he said that Mr. Kerry’s wife Teresa gets consistently high marks from the terror group: “They like how insane she seems to be.”

Elsewhere, Vice President Dick Cheney said he remained “optimistic” about the U.S. mission in Iraq and denied published reports that he planned to use Iraq as a tax loss on his 2004 return.

**** BOROWITZ REPORT LIVE SEPT. 28 ****

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

A strident minority: Anti-Bush US troops in Iraq
Date: Tuesday, September 21 @ 10:05:42 EDT
Topic: Election 2004

Though military personnel lean conservative, some vocally support Kerry - or at least a strategy for swift withdrawal.

By Ann Scott Tyson, The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON � Inside dusty, barricaded camps around Iraq, groups of American troops in between missions are gathering around screens to view an unlikely choice from the US box office: "Fahrenheit 9-11," Michael Moore`s controversial documentary attacking the commander-in-chief.

"Everyone`s watching it," says a Marine corporal at an outpost in Ramadi that is mortared by insurgents daily. "It`s shaping a lot of people`s image of Bush."

The film`s prevalence is one sign of a discernible countercurrent among US troops in Iraq - those who blame President Bush for entangling them in what they see as a misguided war. Conventional wisdom holds that the troops are staunchly pro-Bush, and many are. But bitterness over long, dangerous deployments is producing, at a minimum, pockets of support for Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry, in part because he`s seen as likely to withdraw American forces from Iraq more quickly.

"[For] 9 out of 10 of the people I talk to, it wouldn`t matter who ran against Bush - they`d vote for them," said a US soldier in the southern city of Najaf, seeking out a reporter to make his views known. "People are so fed up with Iraq, and fed up with Bush."



With only three weeks until an Oct. 11 deadline set for hundreds of thousands of US troops abroad to mail in absentee ballots, this segment of the military vote is important - symbolically, as a reflection on Bush as a wartime commander, and politically, as absentee ballots could end up tipping the balance in closely contested states.

It is difficult to gauge the extent of disaffection with Bush, which emerged in interviews in June and July with ground forces in central, northern, and southern Iraq. No scientific polls exist on the political leanings of currently deployed troops, military experts and officials say.

To be sure, broader surveys of US military personnel and their spouses in recent years indicate they are more likely to be conservative and Republican than the US civilian population - but not overwhelmingly so.

A Military Times survey last December of 933 subscribers, about 30 percent of whom had deployed for the Iraq war, found that 56 percent considered themselves Republican - about the same percentage who approved of Bush`s handling of Iraq. Half of those responding were officers, who as a group tend to be more conservative than their enlisted counterparts.

Among officers, who represent roughly 15 percent of today`s 1.4 million active duty military personnel, there are about eight Republicans for every Democrat, according to a 1999 survey by Duke University political scientist Peter Feaver. Enlisted personnel, however - a disproportionate number of whom are minorities, a population that tends to lean Democratic - are more evenly split. Professor Feaver estimates that about one third of enlisted troops are Republicans, one third Democrats, and the rest independents, with the latter group growing.

Pockets of ambivalence

"The military continues to be a Bush stronghold, but it`s not a stranglehold," Feaver says. Three factors make the military vote more in play for Democrats this year than in 2000, he says: the Iraq war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld`s tense relationship with the Army, and Bush`s limited ability as an incumbent to make sweeping promises akin to Senator Kerry`s pledge to add 40,000 new troops and relieve an overstretched force.

"The military as a whole supports the Iraq war," Mr. Feaver says, noting a historical tendency of troops to back the commander in chief in wartime. "But you can go across the military and find pockets where they are more ambivalent," he says, especially among the National Guard and Reserve. "The war has not gone as swimmingly as they thought, and that has caused disaffection.

Whether representing pockets of opposition to Bush or something bigger, soldiers and marines on Iraq`s front lines can be impassioned in their criticism. One Marine officer in Ramadi who had lost several men said he was thinking about throwing his medals over the White House wall.

"Nobody I know wants Bush," says an enlisted soldier in Najaf, adding, "This whole war was based on lies." Like several others interviewed, his animosity centered on a belief that the war lacked a clear purpose even as it took a tremendous toll on US troops, many of whom are in Iraq involuntarily under "stop loss" orders that keep them in the service for months beyond their scheduled exit in order to keep units together during deployments.

"There`s no clear definition of why we came here," says Army Spc. Nathan Swink, of Quincy, Ill. "First they said they have WMD and nuclear weapons, then it was to get Saddam Hussein out of office, and then to rebuild Iraq. I want to fight for my nation and for my family, to protect the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect Iraqi civilians or deal with Sadr`s militia," he said.

Specialist Swink, who comes from a family of both Democrats and Republicans, plans to vote for Kerry. "Kerry protested the war in Vietnam. He is the one to end this stuff, to lead to our exit of Iraq," he said.

`We shouldn`t be here`

Other US troops expressed feelings of guilt over killing Iraqis in a war they believe is unjust.

"We shouldn`t be here," said one Marine infantryman bluntly. "There was no reason for invading this country in the first place. We just came here and [angered people] and killed a lot of innocent people," said the marine, who has seen regular combat in Ramadi. "I don`t enjoy killing women and children, it`s not my thing."

As with his comrades, the marine accepted some of the most controversial claims of "Fahrenheit 9/11," which critics have called biased. "Bush didn`t want to attack [Osama] Bin Laden because he was doing business with Bin Laden`s family," he said.

Another marine, Sgt. Christopher Wallace of Pataskala, Ohio, agreed that the film was making an impression on troops. "Marines nowadays want to know stuff. They want to be informed, because we`ll be voting out here soon," he said. " `Fahrenheit 9/11` opened our eyes to things we hadn`t seen before." But, he added after a pause, "We still have full faith and confidence in our commander-in-chief. And if John Kerry is elected, he will be our commander in chief."

Getting out the military vote

No matter whom they choose for president, US troops in even the most remote bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere overseas are more likely than in 2000 to have an opportunity to vote - and have their votes counted - thanks to a major push by the Pentagon to speed and postmark their ballots. The Pentagon is now expediting ballots for all 1.4 million active-duty military personnel and their 1.3 million voting-age dependents, as well as 3.7 million US civilians living abroad.

"We wrote out a plan of attack on how we are going to address these issues this election year," says Maj. Lonnie Hammack, the lead postal officer for US Central Command, an area covering the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa, where more than 225,000 troops and Defense Department personnel serve.

The military has added manpower, flights, and postmark-validating equipment, and given priority to moving ballots - by Humvee or helicopter if necessary - even to far-flung outposts such as those on the Syrian and Pakistani border and Djibouti.

Meanwhile, voting-assistance officers in every military unit are remind- ing troops to vote, as are posters, e-mails, and newspaper and television announcements. Voting booths are also set up at deployment centers in the United States.

"We`ve had almost 100 percent contact," says Col. Darrell Jones, director of manpower and personnel for Central Command, and 200,000 federal postcard ballot applications have been shipped.

"We encourage our people to vote, not for a certain candidate, but to exercise that right," he said, noting that was especially important as the US military is "out there promoting fledgling democracy in these regions." Many of the younger troops may be voting for the first time, he added.

Copyright © 2004 The Christian Science Monitor.

Reprinted from The Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/p02s02-usmi.html

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Wenn der Autor nicht Corn wäre und der Artikel nicht in `The Nation` stünde, würde ich sagen, alles nur Spinnkram. So sage ich, schaun wir mal.

David Corn: `Will John McCain be the October Surprise?`
Date: Tuesday, September 21 @ 09:48:18 EDT


By David Corn, The Nation

Months ago, when the Republican senator who is often dubbed a maverick finally started campaigning with George W. Bush--after news reports noted that John Kerry had delicately discussed with McCain the idea of McCain becoming Kerry`s running mate--the question asked by political commentators (and cable talk show consumers) was, what does McCain want? Did he want to make peace with the GOP establishment so he could run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 (when he would be 72 years old)? Was he looking to be secretary of defense? Was he hoping that Bush would bounce Dick Cheney and put McCain on the ticket?

The obvious answer was that McCain was just yielding to the overwhelming Ds-and-Rs dynamic of Washington`s binary culture. In his case, the issue was whether McCain was a Republican or not. And if he did want to continue being a GOPer in good standing, then he had to do right by the Family. (Think The Sopranos.) That meant putting aside the resentment and anger he must have felt toward the Bush clan, which--take your pick--ran or countenanced an ugly and vicious campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary in 2000 that included questioning McCain`s commitment to veterans and spreading rumors that McCain had been brainwashed in a Vietnamese prison camp, that his adopted daughter was a love-child he had had with a prostitute, and that his wife was a junkie.



So this year McCain sucked it up and hit the trail for Bush, even as the Bush brigade was mounting the same sort of trash-and-slash attack against McCain`s colleague, John Kerry. At least, McCain could point to the war in Iraq as a point of agreement with Bush. Though McCain, according to a McCain adviser, has not accepted the neoconservatives` argument (adopted by Bush) that the Iraq war is necessary as an initial step in remaking the region, he believed that because Saddam Hussein posed a possible threat and was such a tyrant he needed "to be taken out."

But maybe there was another reason beyond loyalty to the party and to the commander-in-chief why McCain saddled up with Bush. Perhaps he wanted to get near enough to knife Bush--metaphorically speaking, of course. As in, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. (Think The Godfather.)

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, McCain whacked Bush on Iraq. He accused Bush of making "serious mistakes after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders. There was a number of things that we did. Most of it can be traced back to not having sufficient numbers of troops there." When he said "we," McCain actually meant Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice. He noted that the Bush administration has allowed insurgents to establish sanctuaries--such as in Falluja--where anti-American rebels or terrorists can be trained and harbored. McCain, saying he still supports the US mission in Iraq, was making a serious charge: that Bush and his gang have screwed things up tremendously.

Anchor Chris Wallace then asked what seemed to be a Bush-friendly question: "Some have suggested that what we`re seeing, to use a Vietnam analogy, is kind of a rolling Tet offensive to try to break the will of the American and Iraqi people and to play a role in defeating President Bush. Do you think that`s what`s going on?"

While other GOPers have tried to make such a point to shore up support for Bush among potential voters, McCain would not. "I don`t think they`re interested so much," he replied, "in defeating President Bush." ********

McCain challenged Bush`s assertion that progress is under way in Iraq, noting "the situation has obviously been somewhat deteriorating, to say the least." Bush, he remarked, "is not being "as straight as maybe we`d like to see." McCain called for the declassification of the recent National Intelligence Estimate that raised the possibility of civil war in Iraq. "The key," said McCain, who urged more extensive US military action in Iraq, is to "recognize those mistakes, correct those mistakes, and prevail." He added, "I`d like to see more of an overall plan articulated by the president."

McCain`s remarks were not what a consultant would call politically useful to the fellow whom McCain is supposedly trying to help get reelected. These comments came the day before John Kerry was to give a major speech blistering Bush for mistakes and miscalculations in Iraq. McCain--as well as Republican Senators Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar, who on other talk shows each said the administration`s handling of postwar Iraq has been incompetent--softened up Bush for Kerry`s blows. But McCain`s words, given his standing in the media, hit the hardest.

Earlier this month, an editor at The Nation, dreaming of magic-bullet scenarios, asked me whether Secretary of State Colin Powell might break with Bush in October and swing the election to Kerry. Not a chance I said, read this. Powell is completely in the tank for the Bush crew, enabling the neocons. But McCain--now he might cause further difficult for his "good friend" in the White House in the final weeks of the election.

The Bush campaign eagerly embraced McCain early in the summer when Bush was slipping in the polls due to the mess in Iraq. So when McCain (rather than Kerry) says Bush hasn`t articulated a plan for Iraq, can the White House dismiss this serious statement? It sure cannot be pooh-poohed by Bush`s mouthpieces as partisan rhetoric. Might such a remark cause Bushies to wonder whether McCain infiltrated the Bush campaign in order to better zing the man whose lieutenants once bitterly and scurrilously attacked McCain`s family and questioned McCain`s loyalty to veterans?

The McCain-Bush face-off has been one of the most-watched soap operas in Washington. Now it appears that when McCain hit the campaign trail for Bush this summer, the conflict was not ultimately resolved. A few more twists and turns could come, and in this relationship, McCain at the moment has more power. (Remember McCain`s home state of Arizona could end up being a key state on November 2.) With his recent comments, McCain has essentially called out the administration and undermined Bush`s spin. If McCain continues to talk so candidly, he will be serving as a wingman for Kerry. Is this calculation or coincidence? Revenge being served out of a deep-freezer? McCain likes to promote his reputation as a straight-talker, but next time I see him in a green room, I`m not going to bother asking him to answer the question. Let him do what he`s gotta do--especially if it`s personal. Anyway, who would want to know the end of this melodrama before the final page?

When you`re done reading this article,visit David Corn`s WEBLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent entries on a top military commander claiming Iraq is lost, the Kerry campaign`s lag on analogies, Bush`s most recent campaign-trail fibs, and the never-ending flap over Bush`s Air National Guard service and those CBS memos.

Copyright © 2004 The Nation

Reprinted from The Nation:
http://thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1833

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Published on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 by the Boston Globe
Why Americans Back the War
by James Carroll


THE WAR IN IRAQ goes from worse to catastrophic. Hundreds of Iraqis were killed last week, as were two dozen US soldiers. Planned elections in January point less to democracy than civil war. Kidnapping has become a weapon of terror on the ground, matching the terror of US air attacks. An American "take-back" offensive threatens to escalate the violence immeasurably. The secretary general of the United Nations pronounced the American war illegal.

In the United States, an uneasy electorate keeps its distance from all of this. Polls show that most Americans maintain faith in the Bush administration`s handling of the war, while others greet reports of the disasters more with resignation than passionate opposition. To the mounting horror of the world, the United States of America is relentlessly bringing about the systematic destruction of a small, unthreatening nation for no good reason. Why has this not gripped the conscience of this country?

The answer goes beyond Bush to the 60-year history of an accidental readiness to destroy the earth, a legacy with which we Americans have yet to reckon. The punitive terror bombing that marked the end of World War II hardly registered with us. Then we passively accepted our government`s mad embrace of thermonuclear weapons. While we demonized our Soviet enemy, we hardly noticed that almost every major escalation of the arms race was initiated by our side -- a race that would still be running if Mikhail Gorbachev had not dropped out of it.

In 1968, we elected Richard Nixon to end the war in Vietnam, then blithely acquiesced when he kept it going for years more. When Ronald Reagan made a joke of wiping out Moscow, we gathered a million strong to demand a nuclear "freeze," but then accepted the promise of "reduction," and took no offense when the promise was broken.

We did not think it odd that America`s immediate response to the nonviolent fall of the Berlin Wall was an invasion of Panama. We celebrated the first Gulf War uncritically, even though that display of unchecked American power made Iran and North Korea redouble efforts to build a nuclear weapon, while prompting Osama bin Laden`s jihad. The Clinton administration affirmed the permanence of American nukes as a "hedge" against unnamed fears, and we accepted it. We shrugged when the US Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, with predictable results in India and Pakistan. We bought the expansion of NATO, the abrogation of the ABM Treaty, the embrace of National Missile Defense -- all measures that inevitably pushed other nations toward defensive escalation.

The war policy of George W. Bush -- "preventive war," unilateralism, contempt for Geneva -- breaks with tradition, but there is nothing new about the American population`s refusal to face what is being done in our name. This is a sad, old story. It leaves us ill-equipped to deal with a pointless, illegal war. The Bush war in Iraq, in fact, is only the latest in a chain of irresponsible acts of a warrior government, going back to the firebombing of Tokyo. In comparison to that, the fire from our helicopter gunships above the cities of Iraq this week is benign. Is that why we take no offense?

Something deeply shameful has us in its grip. We carefully nurture a spirit of detachment toward the wars we pay for. But that means we cloak ourselves in cold indifference to the unnecessary suffering of others -- even when we cause it. We don`t look at any of this directly because the consequent guilt would violate our sense of ourselves as nice people. Meaning no harm, how could we inflict such harm?

In this political season, the momentous issue of American-sponsored death is an inch below the surface, not quite hidden -- making the election a matter of transcendent importance. George W. Bush is proud of the disgraceful history that has paralyzed the national conscience on the question of war. He does not recognize it for what it is -- an American Tragedy. The American tragedy. John Kerry, by contrast, is attuned to the ethical complexity of this war narrative. We see that reflected in the complexity not only of his responses, but of his character -- and no wonder it puts people off. Kerry`s problem, so far unresolved, is how to tell us what we cannot bear to know about ourselves. How to tell us the truth of our great moral squandering. The truth of what we are doing today in Iraq.

James Carroll`s most recent book is "Crusade: Chronicles of an Unjust War."

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 22, 2004
NEWS ANALYSIS
2 Iraq Views, 2 Campaigns
By DAVID E. SANGER

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 21 - To hear President Bush and John Kerry argue bitterly in the past two days about the American mission in Iraq is to wonder if they are talking about the same war, or even the same country.

At the marble podium of the United Nations, Mr. Bush on Tuesday morning described an Iraq that "has rejoined the community of nations" and is well on the way to being "secure, democratic, federal and free" if the world, and America`s allies, do not lose their nerve. It was the kind of declaration that prompts cheers at campaign rallies; at the United Nations, it was greeted with the General Assembly`s customary silence.

The day before, just two miles to the south, Mr. Kerry spoke of an invasion of Iraq that "has created a crisis of historic proportions," and warned that "if we do not change course there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight." He went on to describe a country that bore no resemblance to the one Mr. Bush portrays, one of bombings, beheadings, rampant unemployment and few allies sharing the burden.

It is no accident. Those diametrically opposed images reflect diametrically opposed strategies for the final six weeks of the presidential campaign.

Mr. Bush and his aides are determined to focus the campaign debate on the decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein`s brutal rule and make the argument that if Mr. Kerry had been in office for the past four years, the dictator would still be in his palace.

Mr. Bush moved from the vast hall of the General Assembly, where the wounds of his decision to go to war without explicit Security Council approval are still raw, to the first of three days of meetings with Ayad Allawi, the interim Iraqi prime minister, whose success or failure at converting Iraq to a working democracy may shape Mr. Bush`s own legacy.

Mr. Kerry is equally determined to take the Iraq debate in a different direction - one that focuses on the here and now, on the "arrogant and incompetent" management of the war since Mr. Hussein was ousted.

His campaign has decided that its last hope of undercutting the image of Mr. Bush as a competent war leader is to return relentlessly to the questions, as Mr. Kerry puts it, of why "terrorists are pouring across the border" into Iraq, why so few of America`s allies have joined the effort and why Iran and North Korea have advanced their nuclear programs while the administration has been preoccupied with Iraq.

"The president wants to shift the topic, and I`m not going to let him shift the topic," Mr. Kerry said Tuesday afternoon in Florida, responding as quickly to Mr. Bush`s speech at the United Nations as Mr. Bush did to Mr. Kerry`s speech on Monday.

"The president needs to get to the world of reality," Mr. Kerry concluded, a line he is repeating often these days. He is trying to nurture an image in the voters` minds that Mr. Bush has begun to believe his administration`s own spin about how well the war is going.

Beyond the mutual accusations, something has changed in the last 48 hours. The question is whether it lasts. Finally, after months of arguing over their Vietnam-era service and their plans for taxes and health care reform, the two candidates are arguing about a war that has taken more than 1,000 American lives.

With their first debate, devoted to foreign policy, little more than a week away, they are now engaging the question of who has a better plan to make Iraq stable and democratic enough to pave the way for an American exit.

For both men it is a strategy filled with risks.

Until the past few days, Mr. Bush`s team insisted that any day spent debating Iraq was a good day for the president, because even given bad news, Americans would get the message that this was no time to gamble on an untested commander in chief.

Mr. Bush`s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, insists that the administration is still confident of its strategy to transform Iraq. In an interview last week, she insisted that Mr. Bush had a winning plan for Iraq and said that "the terrorists have nothing to offer the Iraqis."

While Ms. Rice stands by the assessment, the president`s political team is no longer so sure how the argument will play out. The campaign leadership was shaken by recent assertions by three senior Republican senators - Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and John McCain of Arizona - suggesting that the United States is facing deep trouble in Iraq, and that the White House may be in denial about the need for a new approach.

"They are clearly worried that this could take a nasty turn," said one senior Republican strategist who joined a conference call on Monday about how to respond to Mr. Kerry`s counterattacks. "The headlines are getting to them."

But it is far from clear that Mr. Kerry is going to succeed at changing the terms of the debate, or that even if he does, he will overcome Mr. Bush`s charge that he has flip-flopped on the wisdom of the invasion.

After all, it was Mr. Kerry, on the edge of the Grand Canyon last month, who declared that even if he had known what the world knows now about the absence of illicit weapons, he would have voted to authorize the president to go to war. For Mr. Kerry the key word is "authorize" - he insists he would never actually have pulled the trigger with such skimpy intelligence and absence of international support.

But Mr. Bush has scored points by repeating, at every campaign stop, that his opponent is a morass of "new contradictions on old positions on Iraq." And now Mr. Kerry may have given him new ammunition, with his argument - different from the one he offered at the canyon`s rim - that no president in his right mind should have sought that authorization.

"Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq?" Mr. Kerry asked in his speech on Monday.

Mr. Bush`s answer to that question is a resounding yes.

For Mr. Kerry there is another risk, one wrapped in his own personal history. In his speech on Monday, he evoked his return to the United States from Vietnam. "I saw firsthand what happens when pride or arrogance take over from rational decision making," he said, suggesting that Mr. Bush was heading off the same cliff that several predecessors had gone over during the defining conflict of his youth and Mr. Bush`s.

He dissented then, he said, "because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do."

The last time Mr. Kerry tried that, it started his political career. He is betting that lightning will strike twice. Mr. Bush has taken the other side of that bet, believing that in the end voters will reward him for standing tough, even if chaos and mayhem fill the television screens between now and Nov. 2.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 22, 2004
THE DEATHS
Islamist Web Site Reports Beheading of Second American
By EDWARD WONG

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Wednesday, Sept. 22 - A militant group posted an Internet message on Tuesday night saying it had beheaded the second American hostage in two days.

The group, One God and Jihad, led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, said in the message that it would release a video of the second killing soon. The group still had not posted the video on the Internet by early Wednesday.

The message did not give a name for the victim, but it would presumably be Jack Hensley, 48, an engineer who was kidnapped last Thursday along with Eugene Armstrong, a fellow American, and Kenneth Bigley, a Briton, from their home in an affluent neighborhood of Baghdad. All three men were colleagues working on construction projects in Iraq for a company based in the United Arab Emirates.

In Baghdad, the United States military confirmed that the Iraqi police had found the body of Mr. Armstrong, whose beheading was shown in a video posted by the group on the Internet on Monday. Maj. Philip J. Smith, a spokesman for the First Cavalry Division, said the police had found the body near Mr. Armstrong`s home at 7:20 Monday night.

The discovery raised the possibility that the hostages were being held and killed somewhere in the capital rather than 35 miles west, in the insurgent controlled city of Falluja, which military intelligence officials say Mr. Zarqawi has used as a base.

The fate of Mr. Bigley remains unknown.

In the video of Mr. Armstrong`s killing, a masked insurgent delivers a long diatribe directed mostly at President Bush and says he is killing Mr. Armstrong because the Americans had failed to free imprisoned Iraqi women within 48 hours.

On Tuesday, a Central Intelligence Agency official said the agency had assessed with "high certainty" that the voice of the man reading the diatribe was that of Mr. Zarqawi.

More than 130 foreigners have been kidnapped since a mass uprising in April. Though most of the captives have been released, at least two dozen have been killed. An industry of hostage-taking has emerged in recent weeks, with criminal gangs carrying out the initial abductions and selling the victims to other groups.

The kidnappings and beheadings have severely hobbled reconstruction efforts here by driving foreign workers into the relative sanctuaries of fortified homes and hotels, hampering foreign investment, forcing companies to shut down operations and frightening at least one country into withdrawing its troops.

The message announcing the killing of a second American was posted on the same Web site that had carried the video of Mr. Armstrong`s killing. There have been a few instances in recent months of fake messages being posted on the Internet in the name of militant groups. But no false ones have been put up in recent memory using the name of One God and Jihad.

"The Islamic nation`s sons have beheaded the second American hostage after the deadline passed," the posting said, referring to the new 24-hour deadline set on Monday. "We will give you the video soon."

Reuters reported that an American military official said that a second body had been found in Baghdad on Tuesday night, but that the body had not been identified.

Mr. Zarqawi`s group claimed responsibility for the beheading in May of Nicholas E. Berg, a young American businessman, and the decapitation in June of Kim Sun Il, a South Korean interpreter. The group released graphic videos in both cases. All the videos, including that of Mr. Armstrong, have been similar, with the hostage, in an orange jumpsuit, sitting at the feet of black-clad militants who behead him after delivering an anti-American diatribe. One other American, Pfc. Keith Maupin, was reportedly killed in front of a video camera, this time by a militant group that shot him in the head. Private Maupin was taken from an ambushed convoy in April, and Al Jazeera, the Arab satellite channel, reported in June that it had received a videotape of his killing. But the victim`s face is not shown in the tape, and the American military has not confirmed Private Maupin`s death.

In other violence, witness said early Wednesday that the American military had begun an intense operation in the Sadr City slum area of Baghdad, with aircraft and tanks attacking positions of insurgents loyal to the rebel Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

The military said Tuesday that two marines had been killed in combat in Anbar Province on Monday, bringing to at least 1,037 the number of American troops who have died in the war.

The First Infantry Division said soldiers on patrol near the restive city of Samarra had shot and wounded an Iraqi adult and a child after a car with the two Iraqis had tried to overtake the patrol on a highway.

In the holy city of Najaf, American soldiers raided the office of the Mr. Sadr at 3 a.m. Tuesday. About a dozen aides were arrested, his representatives said. The cleric led his militia, the Mahdi Army, in an uprising against the American occupation in both April and August, then agreed to a truce brokered by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country`s most powerful Shiite cleric.

Witnesses said the soldiers had left after six hours, taking caches of weapons.

West of Baghdad, insurgents fired on Abu Ghraib prison, killing one inmate, the American military said.

A suicide car bomb exploded at 3 p.m. on Tuesday on the road to the Baghdad airport, injuring four American soldiers, the military said.

An Iraqi employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Najaf for this article, and Doug Jehl from Washington.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 22, 2004
President Bush`s Lead Balloon

We did not expect President Bush to come before the United Nations in the middle of his re-election campaign and acknowledge the serious mistakes his administration has made on Iraq. But that still left plenty of room for him to take advantage of this one last chance to appeal to an increasingly antagonistic world to help the Iraqis secure and rebuild their shattered nation and prepare for elections in just four months. Instead, Mr. Bush delivered an inexplicably defiant campaign speech in which he glossed over the current dire situation in Iraq for an audience acutely aware of the true state of affairs, and scolded them for refusing to endorse the American invasion in the first place.

Even when he talked about issues of common agreement, like the global fight against AIDS and easing the crushing third-world debt, Mr. Bush seemed more interested in praising his own policies than in assuming the leadership of an international effort. The speech would have drawn cheers at an adoring Republican National Convention, but it seemed to fall flat in a room full of stony-faced world leaders.

Mr. Bush has never exhibited much respect for the United Nations at the best of times. But the United States now desperately needs the partnership of other nations on Iraq. Without substantial help from major nations, the prospects for stabilizing that country anytime soon are bleak. American soldiers and taxpayers are paying a heavy price for Washington`s wrongheaded early insistence on controlling all important military, political and economic decision-making in post-invasion Iraq.

Other nations have generally responded by sitting sullenly on the sidelines. Even when they cast grudging votes for American-sponsored Security Council resolutions, they hold back on troops and financial support. With the war going so badly and voters hostile to it in most democracies, that situation is unlikely to change unless Washington signals a new attitude, and deals with other countries as real partners whose opinions and economic interests are entitled to respectful consideration.

Mr. Bush might have done better at wooing broader international support if he had spent less time on self-justification and scolding and more on praising the importance of international cooperation and a strengthened United Nations. Instead, his tone-deaf speechwriters achieved a perverse kind of alchemy, transforming a golden opportunity into a lead balloon.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 22, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Washing Away the Mud
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

hat I found most dispiriting over the last month of politicking was the sight of two senior statesmen in the Republican Party - yes, I mean you, George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole - climbing on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth bandwagon in its campaign to turn Mr. Kerry from war hero to craven braggart.

Both former President Bush and Mr. Dole are honorable. And Mr. Bush has personal knowledge of such smears. The bomber Mr. Bush piloted was shot down in 1944. He bailed out, but the two others in the plane, Ted White and John Delaney, were killed.

Then in the 1988 campaign, a tail-gunner on another plane on the same bombing mission accused Mr. Bush of having been a coward and causing Mr. White`s and Mr. Delaney`s deaths. A couple of others on the mission backed this accusation, claiming that Mr. Bush could have tried a water landing rather than consigning the others to their deaths.

The accusations were rebutted by other witnesses, however, and journalists mostly shied away from them. Michael Dukakis dismissed the story, and few voters knew about the smear.

These days, though, accusations that have even less evidence behind them - that Mr. Kerry connived his way into getting medals he did not deserve - are widely aired and believed. A Times/CBS poll found that more than 60 percent of the respondents said Mr. Kerry is hiding something or mostly lying about Vietnam.

That`s not a problem just for Mr. Kerry, but for the integrity of our political process. As I wrote in my last column, a careful look at Mr. Kerry`s war record suggests that he stretched the truth here and there, but he served with immense courage - and he deserved all his medals.

Every single enlisted man who served with Mr. Kerry on his boats at the time he earned his Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars say the medals were all deserved, and they are all supporting his candidacy.

True, Democrats have also engaged in below-the-belt attacks. Some of "Fahrenheit 9/11," the Michael Moore film, was the liberal equivalent of the anti-Kerry smears. Its innuendos implying that Mr. Bush arranged the war in Afghanistan so backers could profit from an oil pipeline were appalling.

But I, along with some others, immediately complained about "Fahrenheit 9/11." Aside from John McCain, where are the sensible conservatives? Why don`t they denounce the Swift Boat Veterans` attacks? And why doesn`t President Bush condemn those attacks, showing the kind of integrity that Mr. Dukakis showed?

The news media also need to think through this issue, for we`re being manipulated. I remember rumors about Mr. Bush in the 2000 campaign that were well known among journalists, but they never saw the light of print because we could not substantiate them. Every major candidate draws scurrilous charges, but responsible journalists - quite rightly - refuse to report unsubstantiated accusations of things like love children, drug dealing or mistresses. As CBS has found, to its chagrin, extraordinary charges require extraordinary proof.

Even though the Swift Boat Veterans` accusations are unsubstantiated, wealthy Bush supporters have turned them into campaign ads - and the press has often covered the result like a sporting event, rather than trying to find the truth. For voters who question both sides` rhetorical barbs, I recommend www.factcheck.org.

The only hope for stopping the mudslinging is if well-meaning people try to police their own side.

If they`re intellectually consistent, Democrats will speak out not only against the Swift Boat Veterans but also against Mr. Kerry`s demagoguery on trade, like his suggestion that outsourcing is the result of Mr. Bush`s economic policies. Trade demagoguery may not be as felonious as an assault on a war hero`s character, but it harms America by undermining support for free trade.

I`m afraid that the dishonesty of politics has infected all of us if we`re so partisan that we`re willing to point out only the sins of the other side. Intellectual consistency requires a tough look first at one`s own shortcomings. So Republicans should be denouncing the smear against Mr. Kerry`s war record, and Democrats should be denouncing their candidate`s protectionist tone on trade.

In the spirit of taking a tough look at one`s own shortcomings: on Saturday, I referred to William Rood as a witness for Mr. Kerry`s Silver Star incident. It was the Bronze Star episode that he saw. Mea culpa.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
U.S. Now Taking Supporting Role in Iraq, Officials Say
Concern Surrounds Whether Power Shift Is Too Late

By Robin Wright and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 22, 2004; Page A01

Three months after the handover of power, the interim government of Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is making most key decisions politically and militarily, while the new U.S. Embassy is increasingly deferring and acting in a supporting role, according to Iraqi and U.S. officials.

U.S. diplomats and military experts say the United States is now doing what it should have done a year ago: ceding authority to Iraqis; focusing on smaller, labor-intensive reconstruction projects to generate jobs rather than big ventures by U.S. companies; and assuming a low profile.

Allawi`s interim government, meanwhile, is consolidating control over Iraqi ministries once tightly managed under former U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer, officials say. Iraqis, for example, are allocating the nation`s oil income, overseeing the struggle to restore basic government services and guiding distribution of U.S. aid.

The U.S. military is conducting fewer patrols and raids and turning over more day-to-day operations to newly trained Iraqi forces, even as the security situation deteriorates. Insurgents said yesterday they had executed a second American hostage in as many days.

"The changes, they`re fundamental. Ambassador Bremer had a veto. . . . Now you have sovereign government," Finance Minister Adel Abdel-Mehdi said. "Of course, it`s a weak sovereign government. But even so, the relationship has changed. There`s a clear shift. Now the government is taking the initiative."

Yet, as Allawi arrives tonight in Washington for talks at the White House and Congress, Iraqi and U.S. officials express increasing concern on two counts. They are nervous about whether the recent shift is too late. "We`ve dug a pretty deep hole," said a Marine colonel who served in Iraq. They also are worried about whether Allawi, who was appointed by U.N. and U.S. envoys, has sufficient legitimacy among Iraqis to pull off this second phase of the transition.

"Obviously, Iraqis do not embrace this government as authentic or representative of them. From the beginning, they have tolerated it as something better than the occupation and as a bridge to an elected, more legitimate government," said Larry Diamond of Stanford University, an expert on democracy who served in the U.S.-led occupation. "Allawi may be an able man or the best politician around, but the fact that he was America`s man seriously diminishes his legitimacy."

Some critics also charge that the U.S. Embassy has not relinquished control on sensitive issues involving U.S. interests, such as Iraq`s amnesty offer to end the insurgency -- even to Iraqis who killed Americans. The plan was scrapped. Others suggest Washington has ceded to Allawi because he is a puppet doing its bidding. The talking points by President Bush and Allawi at the United Nations yesterday echoed each other.

The new assertiveness of the Iraqi government was prominent, U.S. officials say, when rebel cleric Moqtada Sadr`s militia seized the sacred Shiite shrine in Najaf last month, a move comparable to taking over the Vatican. At crisis talks in Najaf, Allawi and the local governor mapped out a strategy. The top U.S. military official in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., and senior U.S. diplomat Robert Ford were not invited to the table and instead sat along the wall, silent. Only afterward did the governor notice Ford and acknowledge him.

It was a far cry, Iraqi and U.S. officials say, from the 14-month occupation, when Bremer ruled with singular power and Iraqis served as advisers, at best.

"When it comes to calling the plays on the field, especially on sensitive military operations, there`s only one quarterback, and his name is Allawi," U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte said in an interview yesterday. "Obviously, they need a lot of help, but we`re working on reducing that reliance and building up their capacity. . . . In the meanwhile, there`s no question who`s taken the lead in terms of political leadership or with respect to military operations."

U.S. troops are still the main security force, but they are now effectively accountable to Iraqis, U.S. officials say. Casey and U.S. diplomats attend the national security meetings as "invited guests," Negroponte said in an earlier interview. And the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq attends the meetings only "occasionally," he added.

Retired Marine Lt. Col. Frank Hoffman, who recently reviewed Marine operations in western Iraq, said: "It`s a real change," and unlikely to revert back.

In Samarra, a hotspot in the Sunni Triangle, the U.S. military has held back to allow Allawi to make overtures to tribal sheiks and resistance leaders. U.S. troops went in to check on police stations and help reseat the city council, missions conducted with the interim government`s approval.

U.S. advisers at Iraq`s ministries have also decreased -- and they now act as consultants, rather than running the ministries under the guise of advisory roles, as during the occupation, State Department officials say. The interim government now determines how to spend as much as $70 million a day generated by oil, assuming a role of Bremer`s office. Adm. David Nash coordinates the revised reconstruction agenda with Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih so more money is channeled faster into creating jobs.

The interim government still has a long way to go to gain full control, Iraqi and U.S. officials say.

Allawi`s credibility is also still on the line, despite an early August poll indicating varying degrees of support from more than 60 percent of Iraqis. Some Iraqis are already expressing frustration with his leadership.

"Allawi is a good and strong figure. . . . [But] I think he failed in maintaining security and that led people to lose their trust in him," said Suhail Jasim, 35, who owns a supermarket in Baghdad.

With the first democratic elections four months away, timing is critical while political and military obstacles are mounting.

"The Iraqi government has taken a lot of positive steps -- and if only we had done this 18 months ago. But the problems are so big and we`ve allowed them to fester for 18 months, while Iraqi expectations have continued to rise," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former National Security Council official now at the Brookings Institution`s Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "There are now real questions about whether there are enough resources to make a difference in the time frame Iraqis are expecting."

Chandrasekaran reported from Baghdad. Staff writer Thomas E. Ricks contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

Wie damals in Hanoi!

[Joerver]

Erstmal Berichtigung zu #21831 es war natürlich Saigon nicht Hanoi.

Wenn du ein Einwanderer aus Mittelamerika bist, gilt für dich die grenzenlose Freiheit der USA nur bedingt. Bananenrepublik USA.
Schon wieder wird in Florida und anderswo versucht hispanische Bürger am Wählen zu hindern.
Was einmal in Florida geklappt hat, muß auch wieder klappen, schwarzen und hispanischen US-Bürgern das Wahlrecht zu entziehen.

washingtonpost.com
Blocking the Latino Ballot?

By Harold Meyerson

Wednesday, September 22, 2004; Page A31

To an immigrant, Arnold Schwarzenegger told delegates at the Republican convention last month, there is no country "more welcoming than the United States of America." And most of the time, that`s true.

But it wasn`t true last week in Miami Beach, where the Department of Homeland Security attempted to ban a nonpartisan voter registration operation from setting up tables on the sidewalk outside a massive naturalization ceremony at that city`s convention center. The DHS complained that Mi Familia Vota would be blocking the doors at the swearing-in. But last Thursday, U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan ruled that the right to register voters was protected by the First Amendment, though he did stipulate how much space the group`s tables could take up.

If that arrangement seems to you the kind of compromise that Mi Familia Vota and the DHS could have arrived at themselves without making a literal federal case out of it, you underestimate the Bush administration`s aversion to voting by new immigrants -- particularly new Hispanic immigrants. (The DHS didn`t respond to Mi Familia Vota`s request for a meeting.) In states such as Florida and Nevada -- battleground states with Republican election officials and burgeoning Hispanic populations -- the activities of groups such as Mi Familia Vota have been challenged by GOP officeholders, though it`s a new wrinkle to have the DHS join the fray.

It`s not hard to understand the Republicans` concern. Working in Hispanic neighborhoods across the state, Mi Familia Vota has already registered 58,000 new Florida voters, says Jorge Mursuli, its executive director. Though the operation is strictly nonpartisan, both its sponsors (which include groups such as the liberal People for the American Way) and the Republicans know that new Hispanic voters no longer hail preponderantly from Cuba, and they are likely to give most of their votes to the Democrats.

Indeed, most of the battleground states in this year`s election are either former Republican strongholds growing more Hispanic (Florida and the Southwest) or onetime Democratic bastions with no immigration whatsoever and where the unionized share of the white working class is declining precipitously (the industrial Midwest). Two years ago, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira argued in "The Emerging Democratic Majority" that two long-term factors propelling the United States in a Democratic direction were Hispanic immigration and the growth of post-industrial metropolitan areas with socially liberal residents. The political transformation of California confirms their thesis.

But what about the industrial Midwest, where in many states neither factor pertains? From Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, there are a number of states from which young professionals flee to more vibrant economies and to which hardly any new immigrants tend to move. In the 2000 Census the United States as a whole was 69 percent white and 12.5 percent Hispanic, with 24 percent of the workforce holding down blue-collar jobs. But Ohio was 84 percent white and just 2 percent Hispanic, with 29 percent of its workers in blue-collar jobs; Wisconsin was 87 percent white and 4 percent Hispanic with a 28 percent blue-collar workforce; Pennsylvania 84 percent white, 3 percent Hispanic and 25 percent blue-collar; and West Virginia 95 percent white, 1 percent Hispanic and 29 percent blue-collar.

These are states where the white working class retains a numerical majority -- but it`s a different white working class than it was a generation ago. With the decline of manufacturing, the rate of unionization in these states has dropped precipitously -- from the low 40s to roughly half that. And we know from four decades of exit polling that white male union members support the Democrats at levels about 20 percent higher than their nonunion brothers.

Not every Midwestern state fits this pattern: Illinois, with substantial Hispanic immigration and with the huge, now largely post-industrial metropolis of Chicago, and Michigan, with higher rates of unionization, are exceptions. But Karl Rove understands the opportunity that the Midwest affords him. He seeks to prompt the de-unionized white working-class voters in states such as Ohio to vote more like their counterparts in the South, to vote not on economics but in defense of their supposedly embattled cultural values and for the party of national security.

And down Florida way and in the Southwest, the administration, for all of Schwarzenegger`s welcoming words, is trying to keep the Hispanization of the electorate from happening quite so fast. There, the Department of Homeland Security, charged with securing the republic from its enemies, is busy securing the Republicans from the newest Americans.

[e-mail]

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Ich bleib bei Saigon!

Tomgram: Are we in Saidad or Baghgon?

[Note to readers: Consider this a follow-up to my previous dispatch, [urlIncident on Haifa Street]http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1830[/url]. Those of you who haven`t read it might consider checking it out.]

Are we in Saidad or Baghgon?
By Tom Engelhardt

The other day I happened to notice a little piece from the Washington Times headlined, Pentagon seeks ideas to fight `urban` wars. Journalist Jennifer Harper had come across a "solicitation" from the Pentagon`s futuristic research arm, DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), calling on researchers to develop, among other things, "on-demand, infantry-operated, ultra-precision, beyond line-of-sight lethal and non-lethal weaponry that has high maneuverability for use in the congested, three-dimensional urban environment." (Ah, that good old congested three-dimensional urban environment.) DARPA also wants to develop ways to see through "external and internal" building walls (think X-ray vision minus the kryptonite) and, of course, "systems that discriminate combatants from non-combatants" in what its solicitation charmingly terms "crowded urban settings." Essentially, Harper tells us, DARPA is looking for "what it calls `force multipliers` in 11 separate disciplines, seeking ways to bolster the smaller numbers of U.S. forces commonly on patrol in the likes of Fallujah or Kabul." In the agency`s solicitation, however, no real-time place names can be found.

In fact, that solicitation is typical of DARPA`s sci-fi approach to the world. If, after all, you plan to dominate our disturbed and recalcitrant planet until the first aliens arrive or the Rapture sets in, then you probably should be thinking futuristically -- and consider all the fun your researchers can have along the way, playing Blade Runner in their labs.

After all, somebody has to consider the future and plan for it. Let`s keep in mind that the only part of the Bush administration to openly explore the problems associated with our coming globally warmed planet, to give but an obvious example, has been the Pentagon which issued a reasonably hair-raising report last year on the phenomenon`s potential effects -- on national security, of course. ("Learning how to manage those populations [of desperate illegal immigrants], border tensions that arise and the resulting refugees will be critical. New forms of security agreements dealing specifically with energy, food and water will also be needed… Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life. ")

But be as futuristic as you want, or DARPA desires; create those "urban canyon flying vehicles" out of Star Wars, or those "perching machines" fit for Minority Report, or for that matter ray guns out of Flash Gordon. It doesn`t matter. All ideas about the future really come from and reflect present problems, concerns, realities, and projections thereof.

It always comes back to the present -- which is unsurprising, since it`s the only place we ever actually are. From the Pentagon`s point of view, of course, the problems of the present very distinctly involve overstretched American troops, often Reserves or National Guards, in body armor and kevlar helmets, sweating hard in sweltering heat as they walk or ride through Iraq`s "three-dimensional urban environments," many of them undoubtedly wishing like the dickens that there were a few "force multipliers" available to multiply them homewards.

Here, for instance, is Knight Ridder`s Nancy A. Youssef describing the experience of patrolling the no-go areas of Baghdad`s vast Shiite slum, Sadr City:

"A dirty look is better than no one out at all, the soldiers said. When parents are willing to venture out and let their children play, it means the insurgents aren`t planning an attack, at least for the moment. These are more than casual observations by the soldiers. The military calls it atmospherics, and it passes for military intelligence at a time when U.S. troops near Baghdad`s Sadr City neighborhood no longer can interact openly with Iraqis. It comes mostly from the limited view through the windows that line their Humvees. The soldiers said such looks helped them determine how dangerous their patrol route could be that day.

"The atmospherics `are almost like the old Indian smoke signals,` said Capt. Clint Tracy, 30, of the Army`s 1st Cavalry Division, A Company 1-12 Cavalry, from Fort Hood, Texas, which has a base at the edge of Sadr City. `A lot of people have lived in the same place for quite a while. They know everything before we do.`"

While the Pentagon considers the future, it makes sense not to forget the past (that other place where we don`t exist -- except in memory). And the past in the American context is Vietnam. Everyone old enough to have lived through that era, for example, should recognize that, were you to replace one "three dimensional" landscape with another -- the city with the countryside-- Youssef`s could be a description of any patrol on foot or by halftrack through the hostile villages of Vietnam some forty-odd years ago.

Lost analogies

One of the fantasies of the present presidential race is that Vietnam is ancient history. It`s a matter of musty documents, disputed records, ancient statements, and youthful acts of heroism, shame, or indiscretion by our two candidates. Been there, done that -- move on. And these days, when we do move on, it suddenly seems as if many people are in a rush to say that Iraq is certainly not Vietnam. Anything but. And in various ways this is obviously true (in part because nothing historically is ever anything else).

You could certainly start to make the case for the inapplicability of our Vietnam experience to Iraq with the greatest difference between the eras -- that we are now in a one, not two, superpower world. As a result, the Iraqi guerrillas have no "great rear area" as the Vietnamese ones did. No equivalent of North Vietnam, China, or the USSR. Nor do they have the greatest "rear area" of all, which was the fear of a superpower nuclear war that would engulf and incinerate the planet. This was an apocalyptic scenario that, in its own way, possessed both Lyndon Johnson, who feared not just a ground war with China (as in Korea in the early 1950s) but a wholesale nuclear conflagration, and Richard ("I will not be the first president to lose a war") Nixon, who privately threatened to launch a nuclear attack to scare the North Vietnamese into a deal. As Nixon`s aide H. R. Haldeman reported the President saying:

"I want the North Vietnamese to believe I`ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We`ll just slip the word to them that `for God`s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about Communists. We can`t restrain him when he`s angry -- and he has his hand on the nuclear button` -- and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace."

Well, so much for end-of-the-world fantasies. North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh never arrived.

All that`s now left of such fears of global conflagration and incineration in our single superpower era of asymmetric warfare is the smaller fear (which has nonetheless gripped the country tightly) of a terrorist nuclear attack on a city, a "lost" bomb from the old Russian arsenal, say, or a new one bought from the North Koreans and snuck into… gulp… New York where I live.

Then, if you`re still in the mood to enumerate differences, there`s the fact that the Iraqi insurgency seems to be a hodgepodge of at least four loosely interconnected groups: "Sunni tribalists, former Saddam regime loyalists, [Shiite] fighters loyal to anti-US cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and foreign jihadists." Infused with a powerful brew of intense nationalistic and religious emotions, this movement has no named leaders other than al-Sadr and the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. There is no equivalent of Vietnam`s disciplined, nationalistic communist party. ("Muqtada al-Sadr/Abu Musab al-Zarqawi/Saddam Hussein, I knew Ho Chi Minh and you`re no Ho Chi Minh.") I`m sure many of you could list any number of other ways in which Iraq is not, and never will be, Vietnam.

But let me note here another phenomenon, which is a bit puzzling -- the loss not just of the power of the Vietnam analogy, but of all potentially useful historical analogies. There was a time, not so long ago, when Vietnam was on people`s lips as a living example of disaster -- think, for instance, of the way "quagmire" reentered the language in the wake of the invasion of Iraq) -- and a whole host of critical writings cited, among other places and historical parallels, the French in Algeria in the 1950s (the Pentagon`s special operations chiefs even scheduled a special screening of the film The Battle of Algiers), the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the early 1980s, Afghanistan during the war against the Russian occupation, and Israel in the occupied territories. Now, with the exception of the odd report, analogies seem for the time being largely to have departed the scene; while Vietnam, always just under the surface of American consciousness, has retreated to a musty debate topic in our media -- what people did long ago. Here, for instance, is a typical headline from a late August piece in the Los Angeles Times: Kerry Shifts Focus From Vietnam to Iraq -- that is, from Swift Boats to something living.

Perhaps we`re just ducking. Analogies, after all, can hurt because in them we usually know how the story ends -- painfully. (The French withdrew from Algeria under chaotic conditions; the Americans were driven from Vietnam, the Israelis from Lebanon, and the Russians from Afghanistan.) Or perhaps things in Iraq have gotten so bad at such an ungodly, even a-historical gallop that the analogies have begun to look pallid by comparison (as in the recent headline for a Sidney Blumenthal piece, Far graver than Vietnam, that quotes retired general and former head of the National Security Agency William Odom as saying:

"This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn`t as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we`re in a region far more volatile, and we`re in much worse shape with our allies."

Whose jungle is this anyway?

So let me try to return us to the analogy fray by suggesting a way in which Iraq is indeed Vietnam. With a few rare and striking exceptions like the Tet Offensive, the war in South Vietnam took place in the rural areas. On one side, the massive American bombing campaigns, the endless patrols, the free-fire zones, the search-and-destroy missions; on the other, the expanding and shrinking patchwork of "liberated areas," the booby-trapped mines and artillery shells that took such a toll (the equivalent of today`s IEDs and car bombs), the hit and run attacks -- these all took place in the countryside. In Vietnam, in other words, the jungle was actually jungle.

Iraq is, in this sense, Vietnam but transposed to the cities -- to, that is, an urban jungle. And as the foliage protected the guerrillas in Vietnam, helping to even the odds slightly in a technologically unbalanced war -- hence our urge to defoliate so much of the countryside with Agent Orange to deprive the guerrillas of cover -- so the alleyways, side streets, buildings, markets, mosques, the unfamiliar urban terrain, all offer a protection which evens the odds slightly in an asymmetric war in Iraq. These, however, can only be "defoliated" by -- as in the old city of Najaf recently or in Falluja today -- being turned into rubble. As in the countryside in Vietnam, so in the city in Iraq, American troops face a literal jungle of hostility -- those same unfriendly eyes and hostile adult stares; the same kids running alongside Bradleys or beside foot patrols pleading for candy. There is the same inability or limited ability to communicate in a language and to a culture that seems alien to our soldiers and officials. There is the same inability to get serviceable information on the enemy from the civilian population (hence the feverish tortures at Abu Ghraib).

In this context so much is, in fact, the same. The infiltrated military and police forces, our "allies" who simply can`t be counted on; a corrupt and weak central government which can`t extend its sway to the "jungle" areas; the frustrating inability to tell friend from foe, civilian from rebel; the no less frustrating ability of the enemy to blend into the local population; the growing "body count" which seems proof of military victories that inevitably turn out to be political losses.

As an American NCO stationed in Iraq recently wrote at the Libertarian website LewRockwell.com:

"We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army but also into more support of the guerilla army."

All of this is taking place within "congested, three-dimensional urban environments" of sweltering animosity and misery which -- whatever Saddam Hussein inflicted on his people (and that was plenty) -- we are now inflicting on the Iraqis. And it`s bound to get worse for Iraqis and Americans.

The reason to make analogies in the first place is to extrapolate from a known experience to an unknown one, and it`s really not so terribly hard to extrapolate here. All you need to do is use the famed testimony of the young John Kerry ("I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.") before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971. He summarized then events and acts to which other soldiers back from Vietnam had testified only months earlier in the Winter Soldier hearings, a set of informal war crimes inquiries organized by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He said, in part, in words that should still reverberate as a warning for all who care to listen:

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape[d] wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in [a] fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country…

"We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Vietcong. We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum. We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals."

"We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings," with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a non-third-world people theater, and so we watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the high [ground] for the reoccupation by the North Vietnamese because we watched pride allow the most unimportant of battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn`t lose, and we couldn`t retreat, and because it didn`t matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point. And so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 881`s and Fire Base 6`s and so many others.

"Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese."

Now, of course, we are dealing in the cheapness of Iraqi lives while we Iraqicize them. Like the "liberated areas," the free-fire zones have begun to spread in Iraq`s cities, as they once did in Vietnam`s countryside; while American troops, spread thin, take parts of Najaf, or Falluja, or Haifa Street and Sadr City in Baghdad only to give them up again. And as we already know from the photos at Abu Ghraib, the abuses, the tortures, the humiliations have begun. Imagine what will follow when the sweltering, "disillusioned and bitter" as well as beleaguered troops the Bush administration -– which can`t lose and can`t retreat -– has put in harm`s way can`t take the hostility, the casualties, the mortarings, the seeming ingratitude, the IEDs, the suicide bombers, the Iraqi police who don`t police and the Iraqi soldiers who won`t soldier against other Iraqis.

You don`t have to be some historical genius to know where our splendid little adventure in Iraq is headed now that everything`s visibly going wrong. You don`t have to guess too hard what exactly will happen if, after our November election, the administration really does order the "taking" of Falluja, or Ramadi, or Baquba, or Sadr City. We`re already willing to bomb the urban jungle just as we once were willing to bomb the actual jungle. The further devastation and the crimes will follow as night does day. This -– more than anything else -– is why our war in Iraq must be stopped now before embittered representatives of a new generation of American soldiers decide to throw their medals back on the White House lawn.

DARPA, of course, represents one solution to the urban jungle of Iraq and soon, you can be sure, scientists and researchers in its pay will be hard at work on miraculous vehicles and spying eyes and perching machines, those "multiplication factors," meant to pacify future urban jungles. But there`s another simpler, cheaper way to go. Leave the jungle.

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute`s Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and consulting editor at Metropolitan Books. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture (where you can read more about Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, the "madman theory," and the Vietnam War) and The Last Days of Publishing, a novel.

Copyright C2004 Tom Engelhardt

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Mysterious sadist who likes to carry out his own grisly acts of violence
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad

22 September 2004

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a mysterious figure who has become notorious because of the savage cruelty with which he has treated his kidnap victims.

He heads an increasingly powerful Islamic fundamentalist movement in Iraq but little is known about him: US intelligence admits it does not even know if he has still has both legs, having supposedly had one amputated after being wounded by a US bomb in Afghanistan.

Zarqawi appears to be obsessed with personally participating in the grisly ritual of decapitating his hostages.

He sees anybody who co-operates with the US or the interim government as a potential victim. Islamic clerics who support the resistance but criticise Zarqawi`s methods are savagely denounced and two who were gunned down this week may have died on his orders.

The few people who have met Zarqawi and survived say he has a strong personality. A prison doctor who knew him when he was in jail in Jordan said he could order his followers to do things "just by moving his eyes."

He calls his followers to battle with bloody thirsty rhetoric. On a tape recording earlier this year he says: "Oh Allah, America came with its horses and knights to challenge Allah and his message. Oh Allah, destroy the kingdom of Bush as you destroyed the kingdom of Caesar."

He was born Ahmed Fadeel al-Khalayleh, an ethnic Palestinian, 37 years ago. After growing up in poverty in the grim industrial town of Zarqa in Jordan, he went to fight in Afghanistan in the 1980s. On his return to Jordan in 1992 was jailed for six years after guns were found in his house.

On his release Zarqawi returned to Afghanistan and later to Iraq. His name became internationally famous last year, when Colin Powell, the US Secretary State, denounced him before the UN Security Council as a link between al-Qa`ida and Saddam Hussein. No evidence for this was produced.

It was at this time that he is believed to have set up cells of his organisation Tawhid and Jihad (Unity and Holy War) in Iraq.

From February this year, US officials in Baghdad, citing a captured message from him, focussed on Zarqawi as the source of al-Qa`ida involvement in Iraq. This was largely a propaganda ploy. The US had long sought to portray the resistance to the occupation as either supporters of Saddam Hussein or foreign fighters linked to al-Qa`ida. Zarqawi`s name was brought up by US spokesmen at every press conference, as if he were the sole instigator of the guerrilla war.

The denunciations of Zarqawi by the US may, ironically, have helped him recruit men and money outside Iraq, particularly in Saudi Arabia. It also gained him popularity in some Sunni Muslim districts in Iraq. For instance when a US Bradley Fighting Vehicle was destroyed in Haifa Street earlier this month, local teenagers quickly made a black Tawhid flag and stuck it in the muzzle of the gun.

The group has claimed credit for a ruthless bombing campaign as well as the deaths of several hostages. The exact number of its members is unknown, but they may number as many as 1,000. It has disregarded calls by other Iraqi resistance groups to stop killing Iraqi policemen and young men, desperate for employment, queuing up to get jobs in the security services. Any Iraqi co-operating with the occupation in any way is a target.

Most of the Iraqi resistance is home-grown but Zarqawi and Tawhid plays an increasingly important role. At the time of the uprising in Sunni areas around Baghdad in April there were few foreign fighters, despite US claims to the contrary. Since then many foreigners have come to Fallujah, mostly from Saudi Arabia, and they are well-armed and well-financed.

Many Iraqis believe that extent and power of Zarqawi`s movement has been exaggerated by the US to discredit the resistance, though there is no doubt that Tawhid exists and is a growing force. But the savagery of its methods is creating a backlash among the other insurgents who see it as too willing to kill ordinary Iraqis.

ATTACKS BY ABU MUSAB AL-ZARQAWI

* 2003 Zarqawi is named as the organiser of a series of lethal bombings - from Casablanca in Morocco to Istanbul in Turkey.

* August 2003 Blamed by the US for assassination of the Shia cleric, Ayatollah al-Hakim, at a shrine in the town of Najaf, one of the bloodiest attacks in Iraq last year in which more than 50 Shia worshippers died.

* February 2004 US offers a $25m reward for the capture of Zarqawi (the original bounty on his head was $5m) after intercepting a letter which indicated he was working with al-Qa`ida to drive the US out of Iraq. Within days of the letter`s release, bomb attacks on recruiting centres for the Iraqi security forces had killed nearly 100 people.

* March 2004 Officials say he may have been behind the 11 March Madrid bombings which killed 191.

* May 2004 Zarqawi beheads the US contractor Nick Berg. The murder is broadcast on the internet.

* June 2004 Zarqawi`s group is blamed for a wave of attacks that killed more than 100 people in attacks in five Iraqi cities.


22 September 2004 12:01


©2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Still no votes in Leipzig

US policy now affects every citizen on the planet. So we should all have a say in who gets to the White House
Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday September 22, 2004

The Guardian
There were few pleasures to be had following Bob Dole`s doomed presidential campaign in 1996, but one was the unique brand of anti-charm adopted by the candidate. I was once on the receiving end of it myself, during a stop in New Hampshire. Dole had just inspected a factory and a huddle of reporters gathered to ask some questions. I was only three words into mine when the would-be president cut me off. He`d heard my accent and decided there was no point giving me the time of day. "No votes in Liverpool," he snapped, before calling on the man from the Kansas City Star.

I later heard a reporter from Finnish TV dismissed with a crisp "No votes in Leipzig". Dole`s familiarity with both British accents and European geography may have been slightly off, but the point was clear enough. He was running in an American election: he needed to speak to Americans and Americans alone. No one else mattered.

At the time, that logic seemed fair enough. Americans were choosing their own leader to run their own government. Americans would pay the taxes and live with the consequences of their decision. It was up to them.

But now I`m not so sure. For who could honestly describe the 2004 contest of George Bush and John Kerry as a domestic affair? There`s a reason why every newspaper in the world will have the same story on its front page on November 3. This election will be decisive not just for the United States but for the future of the world.

Anyone who doubts it need only look at the last four years. The war against Iraq, the introduction of the new doctrine of pre-emption, the direct challenge to multilateral institutions - chances are, not one of these world-changing developments would have happened under a President Al Gore. It is no exaggeration to say that the actions of a few hundred voters in Florida changed the world.

So perhaps it`s time to make a modest proposal. If everyone in the world will be affected by this election, shouldn`t everyone in the world have a vote? Despite Bob Dole, shouldn`t the men who want to be president win the support of Liverpool and Leipzig as well as Louisville and Lexington?

It may sound wacky, but the idea could not be more American. After all, the country was founded on the notion that human beings must have a say in the decisions that govern their lives. The rebels` slogan of "No taxation without representation" endures two centuries later because it speaks about something larger than the narrow business of raising taxes. It says that those who pay for a government`s actions must have a right to choose the government that takes them.

Today, people far from America`s shores do indeed pay for the consequences of US actions. The citizens of Iraq are the obvious example, living in a land where a vile dictatorship was removed only for a military occupation and unspeakable violence to be unleashed in its place. The would-be voters of downtown Baghdad might like a say in whether their country would be better off with US forces gone. Perhaps John Kerry`s Monday promise to start bringing the troops home, beginning next summer, would appeal to them. But they have no voice.

It`s not just those who live under US military rule who might wish to choose the commander-in-chief. Everyone from Madrid to Bali is now drawn into the "war on terror" declared by President Bush. We might believe that war is being badly mishandled - that US actions are aggravating the threat rather than reducing it - and that we or our neighbours will eventually pay the price for those errors. We might fear that the Bush policy is inflaming al-Qaida, making it more not less likely to strike in our towns and cities, but right now we cannot do anything to change that policy. Instead we have to watch the US campaign on TV, with our fingers crossed - impotent spectators of a contest that could shake up our lives. (Those who feel the same way about Tony Blair should remember: at least we will get a vote.)

So we ought to hold America to its word. When George Bush spoke to the UN yesterday, he invoked democracy in almost every paragraph, citing America`s declaration of independence which insists on the equal worth of every human being. Well, surely equal worth means an equal say in the decisions that affect the entire human race.

That 1776 declaration is worth rereading. Its very first sentence demands "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind": isn`t that exactly what the world would like from America today? The document goes on to excoriate the distant emperor George for his recklessness, insisting that authority is only legitimate when it enjoys "the consent of the governed". As the world`s sole superpower, the US now has global authority. But where is the consent?

By this logic, it is not a declaration of independence the world would be making. On the contrary, in seeking a say in US elections, the human race would be making a declaration of dependence - acknowledging that Washington`s decisions affect us more than those taken in our own capitals. In contrast with those founding Americans, the new declaration would argue that, in order to take charge of our destiny, we do not need to break free from the imperial power - we need to tame it.

Such a request would also represent a recognition of an uncomfortable fact. It would be an admission that the old, postwar multilateral arrangements have broken down. In the past, America`s allies could hope to influence the behemoth via treaties, agreements and the UN. The Bush era - not just Iraq, but Washington`s disdain for Kyoto, the test ban treaty, the international criminal court and the rest - suggests that the US will no longer listen to those on the outside. As candidate Dole understood, only those with votes get a hearing.

Will this modest proposal fly? Will it hell. Despite Bush`s smooth talk in New York yesterday, his position remains that America does not need a "permission slip" from anybody to do anything. If Washington won`t listen to the security council, it`s hardly likely to submit itself to the voters of Paris and Pretoria.

Besides, every good Republican knows the world is solid Kerry territory. A survey by pollsters HI Europe earlier this month found that, if Europeans had a vote, they would back Kerry over Bush by a 6 to 1 margin. Bush would win just 6% in Germany, 5% in Spain and a measly 4% in France. No Republican is going to cede turf like that to the enemy.

You would think those numbers would hurt Bush, making clear how unpopular he is in the world. But they don`t. If anything they hurt Kerry, suggesting he is the candidate of limp-wristed foreigners and therefore somehow less American. We may find that a sorry state of affairs. But there is little we can do about it. In the democratic contest that matters most to the world, the world is disenfranchised.

[e-mail]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Only Europe can safeguard our social democratic future

US-style capitalism is already leading to a disparity of wealth and opportunity
David Clark
Wednesday September 22, 2004

The Guardian
Last week`s announcement by the deputy leader of the French Socialist party, Laurent Fabius, that he intends to campaign against the European constitution in next year`s referendum, is a significant twist in the debate. His decision may have more to do with personal ambition than political conviction (he hopes to be a frontrunner for the next presidential elections), but his demand for a stronger European social dimension will have resonance far beyond France`s borders.

Leading British trade unionists have already floated the idea of withholding support from the constitution after Tony Blair sought to placate rightwing opinion with assurances that it would do nothing to advance workplace rights. This may have been a reaction to the spin rather than the substance of the constitution, but it is hard not to sympathise. Why should they be expected to rally behind a prime minister who is so openly dismissive of their aspirations?

There is a real prospect that the left will see the referendum as a cost-free opportunity to kick Blair. If so, it would be a serious miscalculation. The only people to benefit from a no vote would be those who want to dismantle what has already been achieved and turn the EU into little more than a free-trade area. Not all of these are Conservatives.

As some of Gordon Brown`s recent comments demonstrate, the most stubborn resistance to European integration now comes from Labour`s new right. The constitution, with its explicit endorsement of the "social market economy", was always going to provoke the opposition of those who still dream of a world without markets. They now enjoy the tacit support of Labour "modernisers" who wish to dispense with the social, at least in relation to economic policy.

Like most parties of the reformist left, Labour long ago abandoned the idea of socialism as a distinct mode of production in which private property and markets would be abolished, and settled for the task of pursuing social justice within broadly capitalist parameters. The decision to rewrite Clause 4 can be seen as the moment when theory belatedly caught up with practice. The significance of Brown`s latest attack on Europe as "inward-looking, inflexible and sclerotic" is that it shows how close Labour now is to repudiating social democracy and with it the idea that a different kind of capitalism is possible.

In Brown`s view, the "varieties of capitalism" debate has been conclusively resolved in favour of the US business model, with its low levels of employment protection, minimal regulation and fixation with shareholder value. Brown`s hostility to Brussels reflects the refusal of most continental Europeans to accept what he holds to be self-evident: that the social market economy has had its day.

Yet there is no real basis for arguing that the US model is superior. Many of the differences are a matter of choice, such as the willingness of European workers to trade wage growth for more leisure time by working fewer hours. It is notable that French and German productivity levels per hour worked remain comparable to America`s and significantly higher than Britain`s.

Performance also reflects differences in demographic circumstance, such as migration flows, fertility rates and population density, which have nothing to do with levels of market regulation or taxation. The biggest single contribution to America`s recent productivity growth has been in the retail and wholesale sector, where an abundance of space has allowed a shift to more efficient out-of-town developments. This is not something our relatively crowded continent can match, however much its apes America`s flexible labour markets.

Rarely acknowledged is the huge comparative advantage America gains from having a single currency that allows trade across a vast market with continental economies of scale. Even less so, the fact that the dollar`s global status allows it to run large external deficits that other countries finance by holding US treasury securities at favourable rates of interest. Tellingly, this is one sense in which Europe`s detractors do not want it to emulate America.

The attempt to pin Europe`s recent underperformance on the supposed failure of its social model has a clear ideological purpose: to shift public policy to the right. Of course, some continental countries have a very real problem with high levels of structural unemployment, but this is not a general or inevitable feature of the European model.

Brown is as guilty of peddling the myth of US superiority as any Conservative politician, but it would be wrong to dismiss his motives as straightforwardly rightwing. He hopes that by importing US-style capitalism, Britain can maximise efficiency and growth and generate the revenues needed to raise long-term investment in public services. He seeks, in other words, to marry a neo-liberal economy to the social democratic state.

The problem with this approach is that the economy does not form a discrete and separable sphere of human activity. Economic structures generate values and outcomes that help to shape political culture. If they result in ever-widening disparities of wealth, as they are continuing to do in Britain, the ethic of social solidarity from which public services draw their legitimacy will weaken.

There are also resource and other limits on the capacity of the state to compensate for the failure of the market to provide security and a decent income when standards are constantly being driven down. We can already see this in our looming pensions crisis. High levels of taxation and public spending are only part of the reason why the countries of northern Europe produce more egalitarian outcomes. Just as important is an economic framework that facilitates social partnership and shares the benefits of growth more fairly. New Labour`s unwillingness to grapple with this elementary truth is the main reason why the Third Way has proved to be such a cul-de-sac for progressive politics.

The European social model remains the only viable counterpoint to the economic brutalism of the American way. The question for the left should be how best to strengthen it. The answer is for Europeans to work in concert and pool their collective resources more effectively. The European constitution does this by deepening political union, strengthening Europe`s capacity to act and declaring in favour of fundamental social rights. It may not go far enough, but it would be foolish to expect that its rejection would lead to something better.

The debate on Europe is about much more than constitutions and currencies. It is fundamentally a question of whether an alternative to the Washington consensus remains possible. The left should be in no doubt about what is at stake.

· David Clark is a former Labour government adviser; his pamphlet, The Labour Movement Case for Europe, is available from www.britainineurope.org.uk
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

What Powell wrote in his book, ...before he turned whore.
Er hat doch seine `Onkel Tom` Rolle gut gespielt.

[Joerver]

COMMENTARY
An Ominous U.S. Model
Our post-9/11 policies invite Russia and others to rely on warfare.
By Jonathan Clarke
Jonathan Clarke, a scholar at the Cato Institute, is co-author of "America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order" (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

September 22, 2004

Up and down the East Coast diplomatic corridor, heated meetings are taking place to critique what some are describing as Russian President Vladimir V. Putin`s "slow-motion putsch" to snuff out Russia`s fragile democracy. Both President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have voiced cautious but unambiguous disapproval. And rightly so.

There is no doubt that Putin`s moves represent a disturbing revival of traditional Russian autocratic centralism. It is clearly in the U.S. interest to moderate any acceleration of this trend. Harsh words are unlikely to work. Instead, a moment of U.S. self-reflection may provide guidance about how best to achieve this interest. After all, the developments in Russia are not taking place in a vacuum.

Over the past weeks, the Russian people have been subjected to terrorist assaults and losses on a scale broadly equivalent to 9/11. In critical ways, therefore, the two countries are coping with a parallel challenge. If Russia`s leaders looked to the U.S. response to 9/11 as a model, what would they see? Most likely, two core themes.

First, they would note that the American response to 9/11 has been almost exclusively military. Other instruments of American policy — political, economic, social, allies — have fallen by the wayside. All other priorities of government have been subordinated to the "war on terrorism." This approach of total "with us or against us" war derives much of its ideological underpinning from the intensely pessimistic neoconservative worldview based on an absolute division between good and evil.

Schooled by the failure of liberal democratic institutions to head off either Nazism or Soviet communism, neoconservatives argue that there is no point in analyzing the root causes of a phenomenon like terrorism; the only thing to do is to get your shot in first and worry about the consequences later.

The result is an embrace of a no-holds-barred approach to terrorism that neoconservative organizations like the newly revived Committee on Present Danger dub "World War IV." Under this model, military force trumps all else, and input from the international community counts for little.

Naturally enough, this approach tends to place increased power in the hands of the central executive, as many a frustrated member of Congress has observed. Time will tell whether this is a legitimate and effective response to terrorism. But if the United States chooses this path — with all that implies for American leadership over the last 50 years, which resorted to war as a last option rather than as the default choice — then others like the Russians can and will follow.

The cry of war will echo around the world and, opportunistically, the war-makers will invoke the American model in so doing. The facts do not matter. The prospects of Russian restraint in Chechnya, never rosy, are now minimal. American appeals for politically based solutions will seem hypocritical.

Second, the Russians will see that, for U.S. policymakers, 9/11 legitimated unrelated policy objectives, notably the attack on Iraq. Conceived in the mid- 1990s, this neoconservative scheme for Iraq was based on a pipe dream of imposing U.S.-style democracy throughout the Middle East. A noble enough aspiration about which a national debate would have been in order, but one that the neoconservatives knew would never stand critical public scrutiny. Hence the obfuscations about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein`s links to terrorism to take advantage of the in-theater presence of American forces in Afghanistan for the purposes of a war against Iraq.

Again, the Russians can claim they are just following the U.S. example of using terrorism as the justification to implement a long-cherished but unrelated objective. In the neoconservative case, this was the Iraq invasion. For Putin, it is the chance to indulge his anti-democratic streak.

None of this excuses Putin`s power grab or lessens the need for U.S. measures to deflect it. The real lesson is that the American actions cast a long shadow. If, as many would argue, 9/11 has encouraged some of the bleaker elements in U.S. policymaking, it is unsurprising that similarly uncompromising patterns will emerge elsewhere, as in Russia.

The challenge for American leaders, as they go about the grim business of combating terror, is to bear in mind that American choices will attract copycats. If, alongside the military option, the U.S. adheres as closely as possible to the codes of international conduct it has fostered for the last half a century, then the rest of the world will probably follow. But if the eager advocates of World War IV take charge of American policymaking and American policy disappears down a military cul-de-sac, then the idea will spread with unpredictable consequences.



Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
Informed Comment
[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Thoughts on the Middle East, History,and Religion
[/TABLE][Table align=left]

[/TABLE]

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq`s current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

posted by Juan @ [url9/22/2004 06:53:11 AM]http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109582366638394688[/url]

The Western Press on Religious Violence in Iraq

Howard LaFranchi of the Christian Science Monitor gives further, searching consideration to the mysterious murder of clerics on Sunday and Monday and sees dangers of sectarian violence increasing in Iraq.

Paul Wood of the BBC reports on the situation in the British-dominated South. It is not a pretty picture, and it should be remembered that this part of Iraq is generally less problematic than areas to its north.

Wood describes the fighting in Amara during the recent US attack on Sadrists in Najaf. Amara and Kut were virtually ignored in the US press. Wood writes:


` British officers characterise the August fighting as merely a "spike" in the violence. Some spike. Last month, British troops fired 100,000 rounds of ammunition in southern Iraq. . . The base in Amara sustained more than 400 direct mortar hits. The British battalion there counted some 853 separate attacks of different kinds: mortars, roadside bombs, rockets and machine-gun fire. They say that no British regiment has had such intense "contact" since Korea. `



Wood implicitly explains why the British military has generally done a much better job in Iraq than the US forces. Speaking of the occupation of some intersections in Basra by small Mahdi Army units during the assault on fighters at the holy shrine in Najaf, he says:


`There are lots of moderates here who support you. But if the shrines are touched, I`ll kill you myself." That was the warning given to a British brigadier by a leading Shia figure in Basra, during the long hot month of August . . . Since the shrines were not touched, it`s thought that only 400 hard-core gunmen joined the fight against the multi-national forces in Basra. Still, in an area which is 99% Shia, the great danger for the British is of a general Shia uprising . . . The British - with tanks, air support and thousands of soldiers - say they could have destroyed the small militia force attacking them. But they were asked by local people not to turn Basra into a war zone. And because they didn`t, the majority still welcome them here . . . But perhaps the most worrying development of the August fighting was that none of Basra`s 25,000 police officers came to the aid of the British soldiers. Some even helped the gunmen.



To be fair, it seems increasingly clear that George W. Bush keeps ordering the US military to attack in such situations, against the better judgment of his own officers. So if the US had been in Basra, Bush would have in fact insisted on turning it into a war zone and alienating its 1.3 million Shiites. As it is, Wood interviews caretaker PM Iyad Allawi, who admits that he didn`t have the authority with the Basra police to countermand the local commissioner`s instruction to his men not to aid the British. When a prime minister can`t control the police commissioners of his major cities, he is a helpless giant.

Alistair Ryan of Reuters explains that Iran faces severe constraints in intervening in Iraq. He quotes Columbia University Iran analyst Gary Sick as saying that the last thing the Iranians want is a civil war in Iraq. Sick is right. Still, Iran is giving money to various Iraqi factions, including to the Sadrists in Basra, according to British military intelligence.

posted by Juan @ 9/22/2004 06:01:18 AM

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 269 Bush 253
Die letzten drei Tage:
Kerry 239 Bush 256
Kerry 211 Bush 327
Kerry 207 Bush 331

Das ist das erste Mal seit einigen Wochen, dass Kerry wieder bei den Wahlmännern führt. Aber wie gesehen in den letzten Tagen bei den unterschiedlichsten Polls und der unterschiedlichen Qualität der einzelnen Polls, hat das nicht viel zu bedeuten.

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep22.png

News from the Votemaster

Thirteen new polls today and since ARG is going to release 30 new polls today I will have even more tomorrow. Before getting into today`s data, a small technical note. Since there are so many overlapping polls now, something that didn`t happen before, questions like should a Sept. 14-16 poll replace a Sept. 12-18 poll are starting to occur. To be consistent, I have formulated a set of rules described below. As a consequence of these rules, five of the new Mason-Dixon polls are not being included (MI, MO, OR, PA, and WI), because they do not meet the new criteria for replacing an existing poll. Only one of these changes who is ahead (WI) but since ARG is releasing a new poll for Wisconsin today, having one poll be in dispute for one day is a small price to pay for a clear and consistent set of rules about which poll is most recent.

The big news today is that Kerry is once again ahead in the electoral college by dint of his edging ahead in Florida (49% to 48%) and New Jersey (47% to 43% among RVs). However, these gains were partially offset by loses in Iowa and New Mexico. In Iowa, a new Gallup poll puts Bush ahead 48% to 43%. In New Mexico. a new Mason-Dixon poll taken Sep. 15-16 puts Bush ahead 47% to 43%, compared to Zogby`s Sept. 13-17 poll showing a Kerry lead of 54% to 42%. That is a 15% switch in a couple of days, far outside the MoE. Clearly there are serious methodological issues here. These issues far overshadow the MoE, which is why I don`t include the MoE in the spreadsheets. If one pollster is mostly sampling Democrats and another is mostly sampling Republicans, the MoE doesn`t mean a lot.

A new Senate poll in Colorado puts Salazar ahead of Coors there again. In another poll in Colorado, when people were asked to free associate, when the interviewer said "Coors" most people said "beer." When the interviewer said "Salazar" most people said "attorney general," a good sign for Ken Salazar since state attorneys general are not usually well known (quick-name your state attorney general).

In voting news, the Pentagon has restricted access to the website overseas voters, both military and civilian, can use for registering to vote, citing attempts to hack it. The story was first reported by the International Herald Tribune. Is the Pentagon, with its billions of dollars, incapable of building a simple website that is difficult to break into? And is the answer to attempted break-ins to disenfranchise overseas voters, including the servicemen and women who are defending this country with their lives? Is this how we support the troops? By taking away their right to vote?

Microsoft and other companies are attacked all the time, and their reaction is to put up strong defenses. Surely the Pentagon is capable of doing what the computer industry does every day?

I recently talked to a knowledgeable source who has been in Iraq for a long time and his impression is that the reservists and national guardsmen there are quite unhappy, especially about having their tours of duty extended. It is not unthinkable this unhappiness might be expressed if they were allowed to vote.

Fortunately, overseas voters, including members of the armed forces, who haven`t registered yet can fill in the necessary registration forms online via overseasvote2004.com and then print them. Instructions for sending the printed forms to the U.S. are given on the Americans abroad page. But time is running out.

Political analyst and author Ruy Teixeira has written an interesting article about how the polls are normalized. Professor David Price also has a good article on polling and its problems. Another interesting election article is one in the LA Times by law professor Richard L. Hasen on the Colorado referendum.

If you are not interested in the mechanics of the site, you can stop reading today. At the start of the campaign season, polls were few and far between and nearly all took three days. It was very clear then which poll was more recent since they were usually weeks apart. Now there is a plethora of polls of varying lengths so I have to define "most recent" a lot more carefully to avoid making subjective judgements about which polls to use. Here are the rules. They are are designed to be reasonable and also to not require any changes to the thousands of lines of code used to produce the 60 or so web pages, charts, graphs, etc. that are automatically generated from the spreadsheet data every day.

The spreadsheet is the glue that holds everything together. Everything else is produced from it. It is perhaps unfortunate that the spreadsheet date is the end date rather than the middle date, but it is too late to change that. A suffix will now be added to the pollster to indicate the poll`s duration. Using the middle date would require massive changes to the software and data, so that is not a possibility any more. Here are the design principles dictating the rules:
1. Only replace a poll if the new one is more recent.
2. Shorter polling periods are better than longer ones.
3. Polls can only be averaged with other polls of the same length.
4. Dates cannot be averaged.
5. It is undesirable to have the spreadsheet date go backwards.

When a new poll comes in, the middle date during which it was taken is compared to the middle date of the current poll for that state. If the new poll is more recent it replaces the current one. The rules for multiple polls and ties between the new poll(s) and the existing poll are as follows:
1. If two or more new polls have the same polling period, and are more recent, they are averaged and go in.
2. If two or more new polls have the same middle date but different lengths, shorter beats longer.
3. If a new poll has the same middle date and length as the current one it is averaged in, otherwise it is discarded.

The purpose of rule 3 is to prevent having to average dates, which will be confusing because people will look for a poll ending on the date on the spreadsheet and there won`t be one. Thus averaging comparable poll values for the same time period is OK but averaging dates is not OK. Yes, I realize that With a bit of effort, the rule set could be made even more complicated and ultimately resemble the internal revenue code, but I would prefer not to try.

As an example of how rule 3 works, yesterday`s poll for Ohio was Zogby`s Sept. 13-17 poll. The new Mason-Dixon poll was taken Sept 14-16, the new Univ. of Cincinnati poll was taken Sept. 12-18, and the new Rasmussen poll was also taken Sept. 12-18. All four of these center around Sept. 15. The three new ones are therefore discarded because they would require averaging the dates with the current one. Tiebreakers always have a certain amount of arbitrariness in them, and in this case ties with different polling periods are broken in favor of the first one published. Fortunately, in this case it doesn`t matter because the same candidate (Bush) is ahead in all of them. Given the tremendous number of polls coming in now, no poll in a battleground state is likely to last more than a few days anyway, the occasional discarded poll will hardly matter.

As example 2, the current Zogby poll for New Mexico was taken Sept. 13-17. The new Mason-Dixon poll was taken Sept. 15-16, so it is half a day newer and replaces Zogby. In contrast, the Mason-Dixon poll for Missouri, taken Sept. 14-16 is discarded because it is not newer than the Zogby Sept. 13-17 poll and date averaging is not allowed. The rules have been designed to avoid replacing something by something that is not newer. While this may seem like splitting hairs, splitting hairs is tough work, but somebody has to do it.

Ads have now been placed on the websites of four universities in Ohio, three in Pennsylvania, and one in Florida. See the donations page for links. More are in the pipeline. Not all college papers take ads, and prices vary considerably. Again, thank you to those people whose donations have made these ads possible.
Projected Senate: 48 Democrats, 51 Republicans, 1 independent To bookmark this page, type CTRL-D (Apple-D on Macintoshes). If you are visiting for the first time, welcome. This site has far more about the election than just the map. See the Welcome page for more details.

-- The votemaster

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Iraq May Free Woman Prisoner, Briton Under Threat
Wed Sep 22, 2004 07:39 AM ET

By Luke Baker

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq`s government said one of two women in U.S. custody would be freed on Wednesday, but insisted the move was unrelated to the demands of kidnappers who have killed two Americans and are threatening to kill a Briton.

The Tawhid and Jihad group led by Jordanian al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said in an Internet statement it had killed American Jack Hensley because its demands for the release of female prisoners from jails in Iraq had not been met.

U.S. and Iraqi officials said a body, yet to be identified, had been found.

"Lions of the Tawhid and Jihad have slaughtered the second American hostage after the deadline," the statement said, adding that footage of the killing would be posted on the Internet.

"The British hostage will meet the same fate if the British government does not do what must be done to release him."

U.S. forces say they only hold two female Iraqi prisoners. Rihab Taha and Huda Ammash, dubbed "Dr. Germ" and "Mrs. Anthrax" by U.S. forces, are held in a prison for high-level suspects.

There was no confirmation from the kidnappers that their release was specifically what they were seeking.

The kidnappers` latest statement was posted 24 hours after Hensley`s compatriot Eugene Armstrong was killed, his head sawn off by a black-clad, balaclava-wearing militant using a long knife. The CIA says it believes Zarqawi was probably the one wielding the blade.

In the latest in a wave of car bomb attacks in the capital this month, a suicide bomber detonated his vehicle in a crowded commercial street as dozens of men wanting to join the country`s security forces queued up to photocopy their documents. Would-be recruits have been repeatedly targeted by insurgents.

Officials at Baghdad`s Yarmuk hospital said 11 people were killed. At the scene, scores of sandals and shoes lay in pools of blood on the pavement. Iraqis covered burned flesh lying on the ground with store banners torn down by the explosion. A nearby ice cream stall was destroyed in the blast.

Dazed survivors were shocked the area was targeted.

"They just bombed people eating ice cream," said Humam Abdul-Hadi, owner of a nearby shop. Shrapnel wounds peppered his face and neck and his T-shirt was stained with blood.

"DR GERM" TO BE FREED

Armstrong, Hensley and Briton Kenneth Bigley were kidnapped from their house in central Baghdad last week.

A senior Iraqi justice official told Reuters the case of Taha, a biological scientist held at a secret high-security facility near Baghdad, was under review and she would be freed, probably later on Wednesday.

"It is possible, God willing. Her case has been under review," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Officials say the cases of both Taha and Ammash are being reviewed. Ammash was number 39 on the U.S. military`s list of the 55 most-wanted members of Saddam Hussein`s regime.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush and Iraq`s interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, have repeatedly said they will not negotiate with hostage-takers.

Following the announcement of Hensley`s killing late on Tuesday, a U.S. official said a body had been found in Iraq but had not yet been identified. Iraqi officials said a decapitated body was found in a western district of Baghdad.

There was no immediate indication whether it was Hensley, who would have turned 49 on Wednesday.

"Obviously there needs to be a process of identification and the family needs to be contacted," the U.S. official said.

The family of British hostage Bigley, 62, urged Blair to have the two female detainees freed. Bigley`s brother welcomed the news that Taha could be released from prison.

"It`s a point in the right direction, that`s for sure. It`s what these people have been asking for," Paul Bigley told BBC radio. "Of course you live in hope, of course you do. But you have to be realistic. I know the Middle East all too well."

Bush has said Washington will not negotiate, and at the United Nations on Tuesday he vowed not to retreat against an insurgency he said was likely to turn even more violent.

In fighting overnight, U.S. tanks raided the Baghdad Shi`ite Muslim stronghold of Sadr City as aircraft bombed the area and helicopters flew low overhead, witnesses said.

Hospital sources said 22 people had been killed and 71 wounded, but there was no word from the Americans on the toll.

A roadside bomb attack near Saddam`s hometown of Tikrit on Wednesday killed one U.S. soldier, the military said, taking the U.S. death toll since the start of the war to 788 soldiers and Pentagon personnel killed in action. (Additional reporting by Mussab al-Kharalla and Mariam Karouny in Baghdad and Miral Fahmy in Dubai)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Kiss My Megatruck, Dude
When the world is in perfect, ultra-macho harmony, you get a 9-foot-tall, 14,500-pound SUV
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Aww, screw it. I mean, really. You just gotta love this thing.

You just gotta love the fact that some semitruck company somewhere called International Truck and Engine Corp. is now coming out with what they claim is the world`s largest production pickup, called the CXT, all 9 feet high and 8 feet wide, a whopping 21 feet long and 14,500 pounds and 18 million excruciating earthly groans of it.

And in most states that don`t give a crap for their roads or the environment or any human life that might be existing in the various passenger cars surrounding it, you don`t need a commercial truck license to own or drive the CXT, a vehicle that makes the Hummer H2 look like a Honda Civic and that makes all the manly thick-necked boys go, ooohhhyeessss, and that the company itself claims, oh so tellingly, will absolutely guarantee your title of "king of the dirt pile."

See, there is this point. There is this point where it all becomes just beyond silly and absurd and surreal. There is this threshold you reach where you finally just have to toss in the moral and spiritual and intellectual and commonsensical towel and just laugh out loud and shake your head and sigh and then run off to the woods with a bottle of fine sake and the collected Coltrane. This is what you have to do. Especially when faced with such wicked absurdities as, say, Kraft Lunchables. Or John Ashcroft. Or Dr. Phil. Or the CXT.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
And, for a brief, shining moment, I had thought the cute little Hummer H2 had this particular point of macho absurdity nailed -- defined it, owned it, sneered at it and ran over it 200 times with its big crushing 22-inch monster rims and said ha ha ha, I am the one, beeyatch, no vehicle is sillier and no vehicle is more moronic and no vehicle is more perfectly representative of the aggro-macho-gluttonous attitude of America and no vehicle better symbolizes our childish and cartoonish and ultimately sad stance toward how we treat the planet and how we view ourselves and our role in the world.

Not anymore. The CXT makes the Hummer whimper and cower and suck its thumb. The CXT is by far the biggest baddest dumbest production pickup in American history, and no one is even trying to debate that fact, no one even coming anywhere near defending the thing as anything other than every monosyllabic frat boy`s wettest of wet automotive dreams because even the most die-hard knobby-brained SUV fanatic takes one look at the CXT and goes, holy crap, that thing is sort of, you know, ridiculous. But in a really badass sort of way.

Oh sure, the company says the CXT is a "severe" truck for "professional" use. Oh sure, they say it will be sold mostly to hardcore contractors and landscapers and boat racers and people with massive amounts of nonarable acreage that needs to have 200,000 pounds of rocks hauled across it on a daily basis. It doesn`t matter.

Because this ain`t simply a work truck. It`s also designed for the "discriminating" blue-collar redneck with $115,000 to spare, given how you can order the CXT with every imaginable luxury; there`s even a "customized black International CXT with ghosted green flames that has a leather interior with wood-grain trim, reclining captain chairs, a fold-down bench that can be used as a bed, an overhead compartment with drop-down DVD, an XM satellite premium radio system and a rear-mounted camera." I mean, how cool is that? Answer: totally mega manly cool. Dude.

After all, this is the BushCo era, baby. This country is all about excess and earthly abuse and Texas-sized faux machismo masquerading as true patriotism. Why even try to hide your gluttony anymore? Be proud of it, says the GOP -- er, the CXT. Get yourself a monster truck and ride around in towering titanic style and protect the crumbling lie of what makes America strong, because it sure as hell ain`t our amazing religious diversity and it ain`t affirmative action or intelligent diplomacy or deep respect for our allies and it sure as hell ain`t same-sex marriage or feminine energy or spiritual openness or pathetic little hybrid cars, you liberal twit.

It`s Rambo, baby. It`s 7 miles per gallon of diesel, downhill. It`s monster pickup trucks the size of a large studio apartment.

So then. Let`s do it. Let`s just get it over with. Let`s all get a CXT. I mean, what the hell, right? Let`s just give in and stomp around like we own the goddamn place and burn up all the remaining oil a fast as possible, maul the roads and gag the air and wipe out all those silly Priuses and Mini Coopers and all those annoying gnatlike bicycles once and for all.

It will just be, after all, so much fun, until the hurricanes strike and the earthquakes rumble and the exhausted Earth finally shudders and recoils and opens up wide and swallows us whole.

But you`ll be OK. You`ll be safely ensconced in your CXT, loving the fact that in Hell, it`s all "off road."
# Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.
# Mark`s column archives are here

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. Subscribe to this column at sfgate.com/newsletters.


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/200…

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[rightnow]

hi joerver,

neben deinen vielen, u. guten artikeln, hat mir besonders der artikel # 21842 gefallen (hab ihn bereits in meinen ölthread rüberkopiert), weil er endlich aufzeigt, welche
signale die willkürliche usa - besetzung des irak international ausgelöst hat.

darauf habe ich schon vor über einem jahr hingewiesen,u.
fasse das kernsignal in einem satz zusammen:

ab heute gilt das recht des stärkeren -u. nicht mehr die stärke des rechts!

siehe sharon,
putin....

die gewaltspirale dreht sich weiter...

cu
rightnow

[Joerver]

Rightnow
Recht ist nur etwas wert, wenn du es durchsetzen kannst.
Das war schon immer so.
Und das gilt besonders im Völkerrecht.
Was meinst du weshalb es soviel Terror gibt?
Van Crefeld spricht von der Zeit der asymetrischen Kriege. als gerechtfertigtes Mittel der Machtlosen gegen die Mächtigen.
Eine äußerst gewagte These.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

The enemy is us
In war, you deny information, spread lies and use psychological warfare. An expert on military information operations explains how Bush has mastered this technique -- and used it against the American people.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sam Gardiner
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/22/psychologica…
Sept. 22, 2004 | On Thursday, Iraq`s interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, will speak before a joint meeting of Congress, and from what he said in London on his way to the United States, it looks like Americans are going to be getting more of the strategic information operations that have been crucial to Bush`s policy on Iraq from the beginning.

On Monday, Allawi said at a press conference: "Terrorists are coming and pouring into Iraq to try to undermine the situation in Iraq ... And God forbid, if Iraq is broken or the will of Iraq is broken, then London will be a target, Washington will be a target." In those sentences, Allawi employed the basic doctrine of strategic information operations: Influence emotions, motive and objective reasoning. Use repetition to create a collective memory in the target audience. And the recurrent message of both Allawi and the Bush administration is: Iraq = terrorists = 9/11.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
The Army Field Manual describes information operations as the use of strategies such as information denial, deception and psychological warfare to influence decision making. The notion is as old as war itself. With information operations, one seeks to gain and maintain information superiority -- control information and you control the battlefield. And in the information age, it has become even more imperative to influence adversaries.

But with the Iraq war, information operations have gone seriously off track, moving beyond influencing adversaries on the battlefield to influencing the decision making of friendly nations and, even more important, American public opinion. In information denial, one attempts to deceive one`s adversary. Since the declared end of combat operations, the Bush administration has orchestrated a number of deceptions about Iraq. But who is its adversary?

In August 2003, the administration`s message was that everything in Iraq was improving. The White House led the information effort and even published a paper on the successes of the first 100 days of the occupation. By October the message had shifted: Things were going well in Iraq, but the media was telling the wrong story.

Then, toward the end of 2003, the message was that the whole problem in Iraq was "dead-enders" and "foreign fighters." If it weren`t for them, the situation would be fine. Then, after Saddam Hussein was captured in December, the message shifted again: The coalition had discovered along with the former dictator documents revealing the insurgent network, which now would be broken. Once again, everything would be fine.

At the approach of the hand-over to Iraq`s interim government in late June, the administration said the event represented the worst fears of the insurgents, who did not want any movement toward democracy. The White House warned that there would be increased violence as the insurgents tried to prevent the interim government from assuming its proper role in running the country. In fact, violence did increase before the transfer, but there was even more violence afterward. But the administration`s information about the situation in Iraq sharply declined.

Denying information to adversaries is one way of maintaining information dominance. (According to the Army Field Manual, this dimension involves "withholding information that adversaries need for effective decision-making.") In the case of Iraq, this has meant eliminating press releases and press briefings. Since the hand-over of power, the U.S. Embassy in Iraq has issued only six releases, including one on the new Iraqi environment minister`s visit to a landfill project. The most recent press release, on Aug. 12, was about a boxer on Iraq`s Olympics team. The last press briefing by the Multi-National Force in Iraq was June 25. The interim Iraqi government does not hold press conferences.

The White House Web site also reflects the strategy of withholding information. It used to actively provide content on Operation Iraqi Freedom (or as the Web site now says, "Renewal in Iraq"), but the last new entry is dated Aug. 5.

The effect of the White House`s control of information has been dramatic. The chart above shows how English-language press coverage of Iraq has fallen off since July. Early in July, it was typical to find almost 250,000 articles each day mentioning Iraq. That number has dropped to 150,000. The goal of denying the adversary access to information is being realized. But, again, who is the adversary?

Before, during and immediately after the war, the White House orchestrated an intensive program of press briefings and releases to saturate media time and space, stay on message, keep ahead of the news cycle and manage expectations. The White House conference call set the daily message. The press briefings from the Central Command headquarters in Doha, Qatar, were designed to dominate the morning and afternoon press coverage, while the afternoon press briefing by the Pentagon was intended for the evening news.

The White House is also using psychological warfare -- conveying selected information to organizations and individuals to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning and ultimately behavior -- to spread its version of the war. And the administration`s message is obviously central to the process. From the very beginning, that message, delivered both directly and subtly, has been constant and consistent: Iraq = terrorists = 9/11.

The president tells us that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don`t have to fight them here in the United States. But I know of no one with a respectable knowledge of the events in Iraq who shares that view. My contacts in the intelligence community say the opposite -- that U.S. policies in fact are creating more terrorism.

Still, the administration has made its case for the 9/11 terrorism and Iraq connection with some sophistication. For example, on March 25, 2003, the United States renamed the Iraqi fighters in civilian clothes known as the Fedayeen Saddam. Either the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the White House (I have been told it was both) directed that they now be called "terrorist death squads" -- promoting the overarching message: Iraq = terrorists = 9/11.

Recently, the purported terrorist connection was reinforced by another change in terminology. When coalition forces bomb a house in Fallujah, the Multi-National Force press releases now announce that they bombed a "safe house." But Marines don`t come to that phrase naturally. Marines hit enemy positions. They strike targets. The implication is fairly obvious. Since terrorists use "safe houses," the insurgents in Fallujah must be terrorists. And some of us thus come to believe that we are in Iraq to fight the "global war on terrorism."

Appealing to the emotions aroused by 9/11 is classic psychological warfare. And repetition of the terrorist argument is utterly consistent with the theory that one can develop collective memory in a population through repetition.

Images are also essential in psychological warfare, so negative images must be defeated as quickly as possible. That`s why the images of the contractors killed in Fallujah were so worrisome to the administration. Government intelligence sources told me there was fear they would have an impact like the images of dead U.S. Army Rangers being dragged through the streets in Somalia did in 1993, causing rapid erosion in support for that war.

Although we don`t know all the facts yet, it`s almost certain that the White House or the Pentagon ordered the Marine attack on Fallujah to fight those negative images. Five U.S. soldiers were killed on the same day as the private contractors when their Bradley fighting vehicle was destroyed. But there was almost no official reaction to their deaths, no pictures; their deaths did not pose an image problem.

Now, the New York Times reports that military operations to open up the no-go areas in Iraq will not occur until November or December. The official line is that the administration wants to wait until Iraqi security forces are better trained.

My military mind only hurts when I hear this argument. The United States has been trying to train the Iraqis to take over for almost two years now. The effort began with the training camp in Hungary before the war, but that program failed. The robust training program that began in the early stages of the occupation was declared a failure with the onset of the insurgents` offensive in April. The administration has not been able to staff the headquarters tasked to direct the training. Nor is it even certain who among those being trained are on our side. The Marines around Fallujah joke that after they take a member of the Iraqi National Guard to the firing range for practice, the sniper who shoots at them that night shows a remarkable improvement in his aim.

It`s clear the Americans will bear the major brunt of the attack on Fallujah. What could possibly be behind the administration`s decision to wait until November or December to launch it? There`s certainly no commander in the field saying, "Let`s give the bad guys another 60 days to operate freely inside their sanctuaries before we attack." Such a decision would be particularly bizarre when attacks against coalition forces are more frequent than ever, attacks on oil pipelines are on the rise, and the United States is suffering increased casualties.

Any military officer would say that you have to take the fight to the enemy. So what can we conclude about this decision? There is only one conceivable answer -- the White House is delaying military operations until after the Nov. 2 election for political reasons. In the meantime, information-denial operations must be ratcheted up to control the story. But that is becoming more difficult.

During the early part of the war, there was more deception than truth in the comments and press briefings of the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the fabricated stories was the early surrender of the commander and the entire 51st Iraqi mechanized division. We were told of an uprising in Basra -- it did not happen. We were told Iraqis had stolen U.S. uniforms to commit atrocities -- this was not true. We were told on White House and State Department Web sites that the Iraqi military had formed units of children to attack the coalition -- untrue. We were told of a whole range of agreements between the French and Iraq before the war over weapons -- false. We were told Saddam had marked a red line around Baghdad and that when we crossed it Iraq would use chemical weapons -- completely fabricated.

We were told of an elaborate scheme by Saddam`s forces to ambush U.S. Marines on March 23 as they fought toward Baghdad. The president mentioned this incident many times. It turns out what really happened that day is that the Marines were repeatedly attacked by a U.S. Air Force A-10. It was a friendly-fire incident, not an Iraqi ruse. But building on the theme of Iraqi evil was more important than the truth.

Military intelligence officials` prewar assertion when no WMD were found that Iraq had moved its weapons to Syria is another example of information denial. But although the Iraq Survey Group report to be released at the end of this month will announce once and for all that Iraq did not have WMD, the WMD argument already served its purpose in garnering support for the invasion. The important message now remains: Iraq = terrorists = 9/11.

The fog of war has not yet lifted. But when the strategy is to hide the war from the American people, rather than to get them to approve its instigation, fabrication is more difficult to sustain.

Karl von Clausewitz, the Prussian theorist of war, wrote, "War is an extension of politics by other means." When I taught Clausewitz to students at various military war colleges, I told them that he meant international politics. But I may have been wrong -- I fear war has become an extension of domestic politics, moving beyond influencing adversaries on the battlefield to influencing the decision making of friendly nations and, even more important, American public opinion. Why have the American people become the adversary?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Sam Gardiner is a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Published on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 by the Boston Globe
Republican Discord in the Senate
by Derrick Z. Jackson


THE VOICE of the moment on Iraq is Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Almost as audible are his fellow Republican senators John McCain of Arizona and Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Hagel was with several guests on Sunday on CBS`s "Face the Nation." Before he spoke, Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona was given a chance to discuss whether President Bush was talking straight with the American people about Iraq.

Kyl answered, "Absolutely." He described Bush as a leader who "has a firm idea of what he wants to accomplish." He said, "Freedom is on the march." He praised Bush`s decisiveness, saying, "Hand-wringing does not win wars."

Hagel had none of that partisan jingoism. He was asked by the host, Bob Schieffer, "Do you think, Senator Hagel, that we`re winning?"

Hagel said, "No, I don`t think we`re winning. In all due respect to my friend Jon Kyl, the term `hand-wringing` is a little misplaced here. The fact is, a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required. We didn`t do that in Vietnam and we saw 11 years of casualties mount to the point where we finally lost. We can`t lose this. This is too important. There`s no question about that. But to say, `Well, we just must stay the course and any of you who are questioning are just hand-wringers` is not very responsible. The fact is, we`re in trouble. We`re in deep trouble in Iraq."

We are in such deep trouble in Iraq that when Schieffer asked Hagel how long it would take to get an Iraqi army and police force up to speed to secure the country, Hagel said, "It`s probably two years."

We are in such deep trouble that McCain, who just a couple of weeks ago was hugging Bush in a show of unity, said on Fox: "We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders." While Bush says on the stump "we are winning and we will win," McCain said, "the situation has obviously been somewhat deteriorating, to say the least."

More important, McCain was asked by his host, Chris Wallace: "Is the president being straight with the American people? Is he leveling with them about just how tough the situation is in Iraq?"

McCain answered, "Perhaps not as straight as maybe we`d like to see. . . It`s not satisfactory to just use airstrikes or artillery. You`ve got to send our troops in there on the ground. And that, of course, means the most difficult kind of fighting. . . . I`d like to see more of an overall plan articulated by the president."

On yet another talk show, yet another influential Republican senator, Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was scathing. On ABC`s "This Week," he said the reason so little of the Iraq reconstruction money has been spent is because of "incompetence in the administration." This was on the heels of Lugar`s comments last week at a hearing when he said: "Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration -- what I call the `dancing in the street crowd` -- that we just simply will be greeted with open arms. The nonsense of all that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."

Neither Hagel, McCain, nor Lugar is about to jump the Republican ship. All three were careful to say they still want Bush`s policies to succeed. But when three such prominent Republicans issue such pointed statements a month and a half before the presidential election, when they`ve had enough of hearing "we are winning" from their standard-bearer and when it is Hagel, not Kerry, the liberals, or the left, invoking Vietnam, it is a sign that the administration`s policy in Iraq is falling into a tailspin.

Hagel, the Purple Heart Vietnam veteran worried about Bush`s obvious unilateralism in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, wrote in 2002: "I can think of no historical case where the United States succeeded in an enterprise of such gravity and complexity as regime change in Iraq without the support of a regional and international coalition."

Two years later, Bush is on the stump, keeping the war simple. His favorite punch line, after depicting John Kerry as a hand-wringer, is "there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat." Hagel, McCain, and Lugar, not just the Democrats, are worried that Bush`s blindly optimistic and simple-minded invasion is leading to a grave, complex defeat. It is easy for Bush to call Kerry a flip-flopper. But what about those hand-wringing Republicans?

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

###

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Eine Bananenrepublik wählt.

Published on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 by Reuters
Millions Blocked from Voting in U.S. Election
by Alan Elsner


WASHINGTON - Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.


There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic.

Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights
The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting.

But millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights.

Vicky Beasley, a field officer for People for the American Way, listed some of the ways voters have been "discouraged" from voting.

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn`t paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

In a mayoral election in Philadelphia last year, people pretending to be plainclothes police officers stood outside some polling stations asking people to identify themselves. There have also been reports of mysterious people videotaping people waiting in line to vote in black neighborhoods.

Minority voters may be deterred from voting simply by election officials demanding to see drivers` licenses before handing them a ballot, according to Spencer Overton, who teaches law at George Washington University. The federal government does not require people to produce a photo identification unless they are first-time voters who registered by mail.

"African Americans are four to five times less likely than whites to have a photo ID," Overton said at a recent briefing on minority disenfranchisement.

Courtenay Strickland of the Americans Civil Liberties Union testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights last week that at a primary election in Florida last month, many people were wrongly turned away when they could not produce identification.

BLACKS` BALLOTS REJECTED

The commission, in a report earlier this year, said that in Florida, where President Bush won a bitterly disputed election in 2000 by 537 votes, black voters had been 10 times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected and were often prevented from voting because their names were erroneously purged from registration lists.

Additionally, Florida is one of 14 states that prohibit ex-felons from voting. Seven percent of the electorate but 16 percent of black voters in that state are disenfranchised.

In other swing states, 4.6 percent of voters in Iowa, but 25 percent of blacks, were disenfranchised in 2000 as ex-felons. In Nevada, it was 4.8 percent of all voters but 17 percent of blacks; in New Mexico, 6.2 percent of all voters but 25 percent of blacks.

In total, 13 percent of all black men are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, according to the Commission on Civil Rights.

"This has a huge effect on elections but also on black communities which see their political clout diluted. No one has yet explained to me how letting ex-felons who have served their sentences into polling booths hurts anyone," said Jessie Allen of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, which seeks to ensure fair multiracial elections, recently reported that registrars across the country often claimed not to have received voter registration forms or rejected them for technical reasons that could have been corrected easily before voting day if the applicant had known there was a problem.

Beasley said that many voters who had registered recently in swing states were likely to find their names would not be on the rolls when they showed up on Election Day.

"There is very widespread delay in the swing states because there have been massive registration drives among minorities and those applications are not being processed quickly enough," she said.

Copyright © 2004 Reuters Ltd.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

IRAQ:
Doubts Rise Over Partial Elections

Peyman Pejman

Iraqi leaders and officials are getting jittery over the now partial elections proposed for January next year.

BAGHDAD, Sep 22 (IPS) - Iraqi leaders and officials are getting jittery over the now partial elections proposed for January next year.

The government of U.S. appointed prime minister Iyad Allawi has said, with U.S. and British backing, that elections will be held as planned even if people in areas under rebel control do not vote.

That is a growing number. Chairman of the U.S. Central Command Gen. John Abizaid said earlier this month that there are now more areas under the control of unknown armed groups than there were last year.

These areas now spread from the north near Mosul to cities such as Fallujah and Ramada, Sadr City in Baghdad and down to places in the south.

The reaction to proposals that elections may not be held in all of Iraq has been mixed. Some Iraqi and international human rights groups say they are not happy with the decision but can understand it as long as the government does not claim the elections are fair.

"If you are going to have elections, our concern is that those elections be held in a manner that is free and fair," Joe Stork, acting director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch told IPS.

"Questions about the overall fairness will legitimately be raised if they were going to go ahead in circumstances where you had whole towns, whole cities, whole communities who effectively could not participate," he said.

Stork says one possibility might be to postpone and not cancel elections in areas such as Ramadi and Fallujah.

Hussain Sinjari from the Iraq Institute for Democracy in Baghdad says the government is doing its best.

"We are not living in an ideal place where the circumstances are 100 percent suitable for holding elections," he told IPS. "I think we should hold the elections according to the realities on the ground. If there is a governorate, or a town like Fallujah where there is violence, we can exclude the place from elections."

The controversy extends beyond exclusion of some areas.

Abdel Aziz Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), an influential Shia group, says the entire mechanism is flawed because what is called the Independent Elections Commission has too much power vested in it by an illegal authority.

"Do you find something resembling this anywhere in the world," Hakim said at a recent gathering in Baghdad. "Being appointed by the occupation power, and give them these powers, and we are starting elections and democracy?"

Administrator of the former Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) L. Paul Bremer signed an order before the CPA was dissolved in June, to establish a commission to write election laws and prepare the ground for holding elections.

Commission officials say politicians like Hakim are either misinformed or they are being deceitful.

Bremer issued the law but "this commission is the first (electoral) experience in the history of Iraq," says commission spokesman Farid Ayar. "This commission is an Iraqi commission, independent, and it works to bring a very new and democratic election in Iraq."

The appointment of the commissioners came through the United Nations, he added.

UN officials in Baghdad confirm that the CPA had little to do with choosing the commissioners. They say UN elections advisors selected a panel of international judges to sift through more than a thousand applications to serve on the commission. The judges eventually interviewed less than 20. Eight were selected.

The commission has hired about 500 employees but is likely to need thousands more.

Those employees need to be trained, but UN officials say little time is left for that. Some can be trained outside Iraq but that cannot be done for everyone, they say.

Hakim is concerned that one of the responsibilities of the election commission is to write laws on the qualifications of the candidates.

"These few selected people have jurisdiction over issues that affect not just this election but the future of Iraq," Hakim told the gathering.

Commission officials acknowledge such concerns, and say the Iraqi government can negotiate those powers with the United Nations if enough politicians raise the issue.

The commission is meanwhile racing against time to pass seemingly insurmountable obstacles such as preparing an electoral list and determining how many Iraqis inside and outside the country can vote. Ayar says the commission wants to finish that task by the end of the month. Others are not so optimistic. (END)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Wednesday, September 22, 2004
War News for September 21 and 22, 2004

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

Bring ‘em on: Two US hostages executed by insurgents.

Bring ‘em on: Two US Marines killed in fighting in al-Anbar province.

Bring ‘em on: One US soldier killed in roadside bomb ambush near Tikrit.

Bring ‘em on: Eleven Iraqis killed, “dozens” wounded in Baghdad car bombing.

Bring ‘em on: US helicopter shot down near Nassiriyah; three crew members wounded.

Bring ‘em on: Ten Iraqis killed, 92 wounded in heavy fighting, air strikes in Sadr City.

Bring ‘em on: One Iraqi detainee killed in insurgent attack on Abu Ghraib.

Bring ‘em on: US air strikes reported in Fallujah.

Bring ‘em on: Four Iraqis killed in fighting with US troops near Samarra.

Bring ‘em on: Four US soldiers wounded in car bomb attack on US convoy in Baghdad.

Bring ‘em on: Two Iraqi civilians wounded by US patrol near Samarra.

Bring ‘em on: One Iraqi killed; five civilians, two police wounded by two roadside bombs near Baquba.

Bring ‘em on: US troops raid al-Sadr offices in Najaf.

Haifa Street. “Until last week, the world knew little about Haifa Street. Then came the spectacular car bombs in front of the Iraqi police station, and suddenly, Haifa was Iraq’s newest war zone. But to the soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry Regiment, who must patrol the sector that includes Haifa Street, that area has been an all-out war zone for months. In fact, soldiers with the 1-9 Cav don’t call it Haifa Street. To them, it’s ‘Grenade Alley,’ or ‘Purple Heart Boulevard.’”

Sovereignty. “Two Iraqi female prisoners being held by U.S. authorities in Iraq will not be released imminently, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad said on Wednesday. ‘The two women are in legal and physical custody of the multinational forces in Iraq and neither will be released imminently,’ a spokesman for the U.S. embassy said. Senior officials in the Iraqi Justice Ministry said earlier on Wednesday that at least one of the two, microbiologist Rihab Taha, could be freed as early as Wednesday following a review of her detention status.” I seem to remember that part of the “sovereignty” deal was that the Iraqi interim government would receive legal custody of detainees.

Sovereignty, Part Deux. “After This Week arranged with Allawi`s office for Sunday`s interview, the U.S. State Department called ABC to say that the office of U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte in Baghdad had decided that the interview would not happen until this coming Sunday, after Allawi`s U.S. visit. This attempt by the U.S. embassy to exercise sovereignty over the prime minister raised interesting questions about just what was actually transferred on June 28 when sovereignty was supposedly given to the Iraqi government. The White House recognized the inconvenience of such questions. The interview occurred.”

More money. The Pentagon has begun tapping into its $25 billion emergency fund for the Iraq war to prepare for a major troop rotation and intense fighting this fall, administration officials said on Tuesday, despite the White House`s initial insistence that it had enough money…. Bush has so far spent $120 billion in Iraq, not including the $25 billion contingency fund, and officials said he could seek another $50 billion in February. With the rate of spending in Iraq already at more than $1 billion a week, the Pentagon may not have enough money to ‘get past Christmas,’ let alone wait until February, said John Pike, a defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. He said the White House could need closer to $75 billion next year.”

Allawi campaigns for Lieutenant AWOL. “The Bush administration began an intensive campaign this week to present Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of Iraq as the face of his nation and a symbol of progress, even as the violence in the country has been mounting and doubts have been growing that elections can be held there in January.”

Coalition of the squabbling. “Bulgarian Defense Minister Nikolai Svinarov has accused the Polish command in Iraq of failing to consult him on a plan to redeploy the Bulgarian troops stationed at Karbala, the Bulgarian daily 24 Hours reported Tuesday. Bulgaria alone will decide whether to relocate its troops in Iraq, and ‘our country will not allow decisions to be imposed on us,’ Svinarov said on Monday in a sharply worded letter to his Polish counterpart, Jerzy Szmajdzinski. He was referring to the transfer of 480 Bulgarian troops announced by Polish Major General Andrzej Ekiert.”

Fried Rice. "’There`s no evidence that the Iraqis are falling into civil war,’ Rice told NBC television`s ‘Today’ show, claiming progress is being made despite the recent wave of car-bombings and hostage-takings. She insisted that ‘there`s a political process underway in Iraq that has already brought into power a very good government.’"

Commentary

Editorial: “Mr. Bush has never exhibited much respect for the United Nations at the best of times. But the United States now desperately needs the partnership of other nations on Iraq. Without substantial help from major nations, the prospects for stabilizing that country anytime soon are bleak. American soldiers and taxpayers are paying a heavy price for Washington`s wrongheaded early insistence on controlling all important military, political and economic decision-making in post-invasion Iraq. “

Casualty Reports

Local story: Pennsylvania soldier killed in Iraq.

Local story: Pennsylvania soldier dies from wounds received in Iraq.

Local story: North Carolina Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: Tennessee soldier killed in Iraq.

Local story: Arkansas soldier killed in Iraq.


86-43-04. Pass it on.



# posted by yankeedoodle : 8:58 AM
Comment (0) | Trackback (0)
Monday, September 20, 2004
Note to Readers

I am traveling to Tucson today to visit my parents. I will post an update tomorrow afternoon, PST.

During the next few weeks,anticipate irregular updates. Beginning on Monday, September 27 I will attend a mandatory two-week training course that requires extensive out-of-class reading and preparation. Since I work for a living - and my continued employment rests on successfully completing this course - my primary focus will not be on Iraq.

During the second week of October, I intend to visit sisterdoodle in Chicago for a few days because she`s still very, very sick.

I usually try to post daily updates no later than 9:00 am PST, Saturday through Wednesday. From today until mid-October, I expect to post updates in the evening, PST.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

YD

86-43-04. Pass it on.



# posted by yankeedoodle : 3:00 PM
Comments (17) | Trackback (0)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Two Dozen Killed, 150 Wounded in Iraq
Authorities Identify Body as American Hostage Jack Hensley

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 22, 2004; 5:54 PM

BAGHDAD, Sept. 22 -- Bombings and skirmishing across Iraq claimed over two dozen lives and left more than 150 people wounded Wednesday. Meanwhile, authorities recovered a decapitated body in Baghdad, later identified as American hostage Jack Hensley, even as they awaited word on the fate of a British captive threatened with execution by an Islamic militant group.

An al Qaeda-linked group led by Abu Musab Zarqawi of Jordan claimed Tuesday to have executed Hensley, one of two American contractors and a Briton seized from their home in Baghdad last Thursday. The group beheaded the other American, Eugene "Jack" Armstrong, on Tuesday. The family of the British contractor kidnapped with the Americans, Kenneth Bigley, continued pleading for his life.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad confirmed early Wednesday that it had received a body, accompanied by a head, wrapped in a plastic bag. Later in the day, a spokesman for Hensley`s family in Marietta, Ga., told wire services that the government had identified the corpse as that of Hensley.

Hensley`s brother, Ty Hensley, said Hensley`s wife, Pati, was "extraordinarily devastated . . . . She is a widow now," Ty Hensley told NBC`s "Today" program. "She is a mother of a 13-year-old daughter. She`s also a caregiver of two mothers. What has fallen upon her is an extraordinary amount of weight."

Earlier Wednesday, a car bomb exploded outside an ice-cream shop where Iraqi National Guard recruits were standing. Authorities said 11 died and 50 were wounded in the suicide-attack, one of numerous deadly assaults by insurgents on Iraqi security forces and recruits.

In Baghdad, the U.S. military announced the death of another soldier, who was caught in an attack on a U.S. combat patrol Wednesday morning in Tikrit in western Iraq.

And in the Sadr City stronghold of Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, U.S. aircraft and tanks hit insurgent positions, killing 10 and wounding 92. Fighting flared in Sadr City Wednesday apparently in response to a raid by U.S. forces on Sadr`s offices in Najaf and the arrest Tuesday of several Sadr aides.

Iraq`s most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, complained Wednesday that the raid contravened a peace deal brokered by Sistani last month to end fighting in the holy city of Najaf, wire services reported. "This step is considered contrary to the peace initiative on whose basis the Najaf crisis was solved," a statement issued by Sistani`s office in Najaf said.

The kidnappings at issue Wednesday are apparently the work of Zarqawi`s militant group, which claimed responsibility for executing Armstrong and Hensley after officials failed to meet its demand for the freedom within 48 hours of all Muslim women held at the Abu Ghraib jail near Baghdad.

U.S. officials have said that only two women are being held -- Rihab Rashid Taha and Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash--and neither of them are at Abu Ghraib. Taha and Ammash, known respectively to detractors as "Dr. Germ" and "Mrs. Anthrax," are being investigated for allegedly participating in programs designed to create biological weapons.

Confusing the hostage situation Wednesday were conflicting reports about the possible release of one of the female prisoners whose freedom is being demanded by the Zarqawi group.

In the morning, the Iraqi Ministry of Justice said it would release Taha, insisting that the announcement had no connection with the Zarqawi demands.

Later in the day, however, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said that that the women "are in our legal and physical custody. They will not be released imminently. Their legal status, like the other detainees, is under constant review." A source familiar with the situation left open the possibility that one of the women might be released on bail but said there was no timetable on that action.

Following the embassy statement, Iraq`s national security adviser, Kassim Daoud, said that Iraqi judges have ordered the conditional release of three prisoners in U.S. custody, including one of two women held by U.S. forces. Daoud told a news conference that the release would be conditional and would not happen for a few days, according to news services.

"Iraqi judges decided to release them because they didn`t have any evidence. The judges decided on a conditional release. It will not happen today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow," he said.

Finally, interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said in an interview with The Associated Press from New York, that no decision had been made to free any prisoners.

"We have not been negotiating and we will not negotiate with terrorists on the release of hostages," Allawi said.

He said any releases have not yet been decided and that he himself has the final decision on any prisoners who should be released. He said he expected to look at some cases when he returns to Baghdad after meetings in New York and Washington this week.

There was no immediate response from the kidnappers as to whether that decision would satisfy them and prevent the execution of Bigley.

In London, Bigley`s brother, Paul, told BBC radio that "hopefully they [the kidnappers] will pick this up on the media, and show that they have a gram of decency in them by releasing Ken."

Car bomb attacks on Iraqi security forces and recruits have become a deadly staple of insurgent activity and a cause for continuing complaints from Iraqis about the security situation in the country.

The site of Wednesday morning`s blast had been attacked Tuesday as recruits were gathering there. They were sent home as a result and told to return Wednesday.

When they did, they were attacked again, only this time with tragic consequences despite the fact that they tried to spread out into smaller groups.

"The government is responsible for these deaths," said Haithem Saleem, a teacher who witnessed today`s attack that killed 11. "It does not protect them. They are not learning the lesson very well. They know these people are targeted and they don`t do anything about it."

A National Guard captain on the scene who declined to give his name, said that insurgents have turned their attention away from the police, who have been attacked so much that they are on constant alert, to the National Guard recruits, who are a "softer target."

Barbash reported from Washington.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Eine nackte Brust kostet 550 000,-$. Scheinheiliger ght es wohl nicht mehr.

washingtonpost.com
CBS Stations Fined $550,000 for Jackson Breast Exposure

By Lisa de Moraes and Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 22, 2004; 3:02 PM

The Federal Communications Commission today slapped the CBS television stations owned by the network`s parent company with a record $550,000 fine for violating broadcast decency standards when CBS aired Janet Jackson`s breast-baring Super Bowl halftime show in January.

In its announcement, the FCC said it was proposing the maximum amount of $27,500 against each of the 20 Viacom-owned CBS stations that aired the show, during which pop star Justin Timberlake ripped off part of Jackson`s costume, revealing her right breast.

The commission explained that it had done so because CBS not only aired, but also had been involved in the planning of the halftime entertainment that was produced by MTV, another Viacom division.

The FCC also explained that it had confined its fine to the stations owned by CBS and would not fine the approximately 200 CBS stations that are owned by other companies and are only "affiliated" with the network (including the Washington, D.C., market`s WUSA) because of the "history of indecency violations committed by Viacom`s Infinity Broadcasting Corporation subsidiaries."

Infinity broadcasting is the nation`s second largest radio chain, with more than 200 stations. It also syndicates popular shock jock Howard Stern.

CBS said it was "extremely disappointed in the ruling."

"While we regret that the incident occurred and have apologized to our viewers, we continue to believe that nothing in the Super Bowl broadcast violated indecency laws," CBS said in a statement issued this afternoon.

CBS also noted that its own investigation of the incident "proved that no one in our company had any advance knowledge about the incident."

The network said it was reviewing its options to respond to the ruling.

Jackson could not be reached for comment at press time. In an interview she did with Genre magazine that is scheduled to hit newsstands next week, she`s quoted saying that the brouhaha over the exposure of her right breast is the worst kind of hypocrisy in an era of "very sexual" television commercials for beer and Viagra.

All five FCC commissioners voted for the fine but three expressed concerns about the ruling, saying the fine was too small and that it should have extended to affiliate stations, as well.

The division within the commission represents the political struggle over where and when to set standards for broadcast decency.

Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein voted for the fine but said he thought it was a punishment CBS will barely feel, pointing out that the amount represents "7 1/2 seconds of Super Bowl ad time."

While Adelstein`s objection was the most strident, commissioners Michael J. Copps and Kevin J. Martin expressed concerns about the ruling, as well. "The commission must be careful not to signal that we would excuse indecent broadcasts merely because a station did not control the production of the content," Copps said. "Some level of fine would have been appropriate for these stations."

Today`s enforcement action marks only the third time the FCC has fined a television broadcaster for violating the agency`s indecency standards, which prohibit the broadcasting of sexual or scatological material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., the hours during which children are most likely to be watching.

The FCC routinely fines radio broadcasters for indecency violations. In June, radio giant Clear Channel Communications Inc. paid $1.7 million to settle all pending indecency complaints and actions lodged against its stations. Infinity Broadcasting was found liable for a $357,000 for indecent broadcasts by shock jocks Opie & Anthony in 2002, who have since been fired and are now working at XM Satellite Radio.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

Das ist unbezahlbar!
[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 23, 2004
POLITICS
Top Shiite Cleric Is Said to Fear Voting in Iraq May Be Delayed
By DEXTER FILKINS

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 22 - Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, the nation`s most powerful Shiite leader, is growing increasingly concerned that nationwide elections could be delayed, his aides said, and has even threatened to withdraw his support for the elections unless changes are made to increase the representation of Shiites, according to one Iraqi source close to him.

Aides to Ayatollah Sistani contacted Lakhdar Brahimi of Algeria, the United Nations adviser who brokered the agreement to hold the elections, planned for January, to express concern that they would be delayed, according to Hamid Khaffaf, one of Ayatollah Sistani`s top aides.

Another source close to the electoral negotiations said Ayatollah Sistani had asked Mr. Brahimi to return to Iraq to try to address his concerns. Mr. Khaffaf declined to discuss details of the conversation.

[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
In New York, Mr. Brahimi`s aides said only that he had not spoken recently to Ayatollah Sistani. The United Nations special representative to Iraq, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi of Pakistan, could not be reached for comment.

According to people with knowledge of the talks, Ayatollah Sistani is concerned that the nascent democratic process here is falling under the control of a handful of the largest political parties, which cooperated with the American occupation and are comprised largely of exiles.

In particular, these sources say, Ayatollah Sistani is worried about discussions now under way among those parties to form a single ticket for the elections, thus limiting the choices of voters and smothering smaller political parties.

Ayatollah Sistani, who earlier this year sent tens of thousands of Iraqis into the streets to demand early elections, is said to be worried that a "consensus list" of candidates from the larger political parties would artificially limit the power of the Shiites, who form a majority in the country.

Under an agreement reached among exile groups in the early 1990`s, the Shiites were said to make up about 55 percent of the population. Ayatollah Sistani, the sources say, believes the Shiite population has swelled since then and therefore would be underrepresented on any list based on a 55 percent figure.

Ayatollah Sistani also expressed concerns that the Iraqi government, possibly under American pressure, would postpone the elections on the pretext that the anarchical conditions that prevail over parts of the country would make the results illegitimate, the sources said.

According to an Iraqi close to Ayatollah Sistani who spoke at length with him last weekend, the ayatollah is so upset about the prospect that the Shiites might be underrepresented that he is prepared to withdraw his support for the elections if his concerns are not addressed. It is unclear, however, what specific demands he has made.

"If he sees that what this is leading to is unfair and unfree elections, then he will not take part in it,`` the Iraqi said. "He will declare the elections to be illegitimate."

The activity by Ayatollah Sistani represents a reassertion of his efforts to ensure that the country`s long-suppressed Shiite Arabs translate their majority status into political power. In the months since the Americans toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Sistani has largely stayed away from engaging in the minutiae of partisan politics, but he has aggressively pushed the Americans, the United Nations and the Iraqi government to hold democratic elections as soon as possible.

The prospect of a boycott by Ayatollah Sistani could have severe consequences. The grand ayatollah, the senior cleric among the Shiite religious hierarchy, commands vast respect among ordinary Iraqis, many of whom could be counted on to give serious consideration to a pronouncement by him about the elections. An association of Sunni clerics has already announced that they will boycott the election.

Ayatollah Sistani`s concerns also reflect a certain ambivalence regarding the presence of foreign forces in the country and the influence of international organizations like the United Nations. In the months since the Americans toppled Mr. Hussein, Ayatollah Sistani has declared a wish to end the American presence, but he has not told Iraqis to oppose it aggressively.

His concerns come at a time of growing uncertainty about the feasibility of holding elections here in January, with a guerrilla insurgency raging across much of Sunni-dominated areas north and west of Baghdad. Last week, Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted whether legitimate elections could be carried out in the current environment. Some United Nations officials in Baghdad, however, have said they believe elections can go forward.

American commanders say they intend to bring many of the most restive areas, including Falluja, under control by the end of the year, by force if necessary.

In recent weeks, the leaders of the major Iraqi parties have been negotiating the possibility of forming a unified ticket for the elections.

Under the electoral system, drawn up by the United Nations, voters will select not individual candidates but lists, whose members will take a number of seats in the National Assembly roughly proportional to the shares of the votes their parties receive.

While many Iraqi leaders envisioned that each party would put forward its own list for the election, the negotiations among the larger parties are driving at consolidating all of the candidates onto a single slate. Party leaders involved in the negotiations say such a ticket would be conducive to national unity in a time of great distress.

"The goal is to have a united front,`` said Adil Abdul Mahdi, the Iraqi finance minister and a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a leading Shiite party. "We think that would be better for the unity of the country."

It was unclear late Wednesday precisely what Ayatollah Sistani sought from Mr. Brahimi or others at the United Nations. Mr. Khaffaf declined to discuss what Ayatollah Sistani would like Mr. Brahimi to do, other than to say, "The most important thing now is to hold the election at the specified time.``

As concerned as Ayatollah Sistani is about early elections, he appears to be equally worried that the democratic process may be usurped by the well-financed major parties, nearly all of which flourished in exile and cooperated with the American occupation. These parties include the Iraqi National Accord, which is headed by the prime minister, Ayad Allawi; the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as Sciri; the Dawa Party; the Iraqi National Congress; the Kurdish Democratic Party, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.

Dawa and Sciri are Shiite-dominated political parties; the National Accord and the National Congress are of mixed religion and ethnicity.

All six of these parties are dominated by exiles, and together they formed the core of the external opposition to Saddam Hussein. Each was represented on the Iraqi Governing Council, the American-approved advisory board that served during the 15 months of military occupation.

"Ayatollah Sistani`s concern is that the elections are being controlled and managed by the political parties that took part in the government,`` said the source close to Ayatollah Sistani.

Similar complaints arose last month during the gathering that was called to choose a National Conference, which is now advising the government.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Die Kampagne aus der Sicht von CFR.
http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/

September 21, 2004
Q&A: James M. Lindsay on the War and Presidential Politics

From the Council on Foreign Relations, September 21, 2004
http://www.cfr.org/pub7388/james_m_lindsay_bernard_gwertzman…
James M. Lindsay, the Council`s director of studies and a long-time student of American politics, says that John Kerry`s September 20 policy speech on Iraq and President Bush`s September 21 address to the United Nations General Assembly have made clear the differences between the two men over Iraq. "For President Bush, it`s to argue that Iraq was the right thing to do, that it`s working, that we will all be better off for it. For John Kerry, it`s to argue that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time, and we are worse off for it."

[Table align=left]

[/TABLE]
Lindsay, a Council vice president and the holder of the Maurice R. Greenberg chair, says that besides criticizing Bush`s handling of the Iraq war, Kerry has yet to decisively come up with a plan for prosecuting the war differently. A major Kerry appeal--to widen allied participation in the war--is difficult to envisage happening. "The reality is, making Iraq work is going to be very difficult whether the next president is George Bush or John Kerry," he says.

Lindsay, whom Council rules prohibit from working on U.S. political campaigns because he is an officer of the organization, was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on September 21, 2004.

What are the candidates trying to accomplish with their back-to-back speeches?

Both men are trying to make the case for their positions on Iraq. For President Bush, it`s to argue that Iraq was the right thing to do, that it`s working, that we will all be better off for it. For John Kerry, it`s to argue that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time, and we are worse off for it.

What was Bush trying to do in his speech to the General Assembly?

Here you see what President Bush does very well: mixing up his tone. This was a speech that didn`t focus on Iraq per se, but put Iraq in a broader context: the commitment of the United States and of the United Nations to promote human dignity. Bush made it clear in his speech that it isn`t sufficient to talk about human dignity; that it`s important for countries to take a stand, to be counted at the decisive moment; that that is what his administration had done; that it is what his partners in his coalition of the willing had done; and that they were ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century; and that those challenges were terrorism and also issues like AIDS and, ultimately, spreading democracy, hence the president`s talk of creating a democracy fund.

The stress on a U.N. democracy fund surprised me, considering that the current animosity toward the United States will make it difficult for any Bush proposal to generate international support.

The president`s speech has an impact abroad and it has an impact at home. I doubt anyone on the Bush team thinks that a U.N. speech is going to change the political order in the Middle East. Indeed, I`m sure we will soon see a flurry of commentary talking about the hypocrisy of the administration policy as it talks about democracy on one hand and then relies on governments in Riyadh and Islamabad to accomplish its foreign policy objectives.

The clue to what we see from the president, ever since the summer of 2003, is a greater rhetorical commitment to the notion of democracy. Once it turned out that the administration wasn`t finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, democracy has become a much more central part of the president`s rhetoric and much different from the way the president talked about foreign policy four years ago in his campaign with Al Gore. The key thing here, of course, is how one spreads democracy and how one promotes it, and I think on that square the administration is discovering in Afghanistan and in Iraq that it is one thing to toss out the evil dictator, but that it is very difficult to create stability--meaningful stability--in its wake.

Kerry`s speech was largely about Iraq. Will Democrats regard Bush`s discussion of democracy as empty rhetoric?

Senator Kerry focused on what he called the administration`s "stubborn incompetence." His effort is to show the president has made the wrong choices consistently and will continue to make the wrong choices. Senator Kerry is not taking issue with the president`s claims about democracy, so we`re not talking about the end goal but, rather, whether the administration has a game plan for getting Iraq right. Most Americans think democracy is a good thing, for obvious reasons, so there`s little to be gained politically by arguing about the merits of promoting democracy. Rather, Kerry`s speech focused on what the administration has done in Iraq and attempted to argue that Kerry had a strategy for succeeding in Iraq.

How would you describe Kerry`s strategy?

Senator Kerry`s strategy, in essence, says it is important to internationalize forces in Iraq, bring in more troops from outside, train Iraqi soldiers, and provide more benefits to the Iraqi people. The administration`s rejoinder to that has been that "Senator Kerry is describing the policy that we have been following for the last several months," which gets to the heart of the challenge facing Senator Kerry. The easy part is making the case that Iraq is not going as well as the administration had hoped. The hard part is persuading people that he has a policy that is any different from the administration`s, and that it`s likely to work.

We talked about the "internationalization" proposal after the Democratic Convention. It was a major part of Kerry`s convention speech, the idea that he would get the allies to relieve the burden on U.S. troops.

That points again to the challenge Senator Kerry faces. Why is it that we expect that he would be more successful in persuading countries to put themselves in harm`s way than the administration has been? Particularly since, as Senator Kerry has said, and I think there`s sufficient evidence to suggest that his description is accurate, that we face real problems in Iraq.

Senator Kerry, in his [September 20] speech, talked about the mounting American death toll, that certain parts of the country are now "no-go" zones for American soldiers. We`re seeing the videos of Americans being beheaded. When a situation looks like that, why would other countries want to put their forces at risk? That`s the real tension in Senator Kerry`s position; indeed, it`s the problem that the administration faces. I`m sure President Bush would very much like to be able to point to having more countries spending more money, providing more troops in Iraq, but he`s been unable to do it.

Some say other countries won`t join in because they don`t like Bush. But I suspect they`re not joining in because the situation is not very inviting. If everything was going smoothly in Iraq, you`d have more volunteers.

That`s one of the ironies, that if Iraq were going really well, the administration would have less incentive to invite others in. As you recall, when the statue of Saddam Hussein was first toppled in April of 2003, the administration actively discouraged other countries from coming in. The administration wanted to run the show by itself because it was going very well. At that time, other countries were more willing to join in, in part because several of them wanted to heal the rift that had developed before the war, partly because things were going well and if you`re going to get in, better to get in when it`s going well. Now that we`re in a situation where it`s not going well, it`s much more important to the administration, and countries, regardless of what they feel toward George Bush personally, now say, "This would be very hard for us to do."

Let`s speculate about would what happen if Bush wins re-election or if Kerry is elected. Would there be a shift in the international climate after either result?

Dealing with the specific case of Iraq, having an election obviously moves up the uncertainty as to who`s going to be in the White House and whether or not you`re going to be punished or rewarded for what you did for the current incumbent. But I think what happens in Iraq, in terms of the willingness of other countries to join, will ultimately depend on what happens inside Iraq.

If the government of [Prime Minister Ayad] Allawi can succeed, if it manages to have a semblance of order, if it avoids civil war, I think that creates the conditions where it`s not unreasonable that other countries might go in, death toll goes down, stability comes about, you`re more likely to see foreign troops.

If, however, the trend continues as it had in preceding months, where the death toll of American troops has actually increased since Americans formally handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis, and it`s going to be very difficult to get any other countries to go in, then we`re going to have a real, probing debate in this country over whether to stay or whether to go, and it will, in many ways, echo, not in all the particulars, but echo, broadly, the debate we had in Vietnam about "when is enough enough?"

Do you stick it out a bit longer, because if you tough it out and keep your nose to the wheel, eventually good things will happen? Or is it time to cut your losses? I think you heard in Senator Kerry`s speech at least some ambivalence about how long you should want to stick around in Iraq. The president, on the other hand, has said he intends to see it through but, obviously, if the situation in Iraq worsens substantially, that can change political calculations pretty quickly.

Indeed, we may soon reach a certain point where we begin to wonder if perhaps a solution might be to lower the American presence. I think we are headed, in terms of Iraq, to a much more bitter, if it can be believed, debate over what to do about Iraq, even after the election.

Regardless of who wins the election?

I think it`s important to point out that the president, assuming George Bush is re-elected, is going to have problems in his own party. Over this past weekend, we have seen influential Republican senators--Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, John McCain --come out and say, in essence, things are bad in Iraq and getting worse, and unless we have a real change of strategy, we`re going to have very serious problems. I think obviously, for the White House, that`s a potential warning sign.

You mentioned the possibility of lowering the presence, but I also hear talk, mostly from military people, about having to take Falluja back from the insurgents. Do you think a tougher policy would have any benefit?

It`s one of the most lively debates among people who follow the insurgency, and I don`t think anyone knows the answer to that. The problem with the "hit `em harder" strategy is that we will end up killing a lot of civilians--that`s one of the reasons the insurgents hide among the public, to maximize the collateral damage--and there`s a real question as to how much tolerance there would be for that in the American public.

There`s a real problem the administration created for itself on this war, which was that several months ago, we went into Falluja, and then all of a sudden pulled back, and I think that sent the wrong signals. We can debate whether it would have been wiser to go to completion or not to have begun the operation at all, but I think that`s a very real problem. Indeed, in dealing with the insurgents, you actually have varieties of different groups acting for different reasons, and it`s not clear that taking over Falluja is going to solve the problem with the terrorist groups beheading Americans or citizens from other countries. I think the big fear on the horizon is that what`s really happening in Iraq is a hardening of lines between the major sectarian communities, particularly Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab, and that this could creep toward a civil war, which is the nightmare everyone hoped to avoid going in.

You don`t expect any calming of the waters after the election? Give the best case after a Kerry victory.

When Senator Kerry makes his case, he essentially argues the following: when I am elected, leaders of other countries will know there`s a new man in the White House who will be able to turn the page, in whom they will have greater confidence that his administration will be able to work with them, who will get those other governments to send troops and will commit to training Iraqi soldiers quickly so Iraqis can also take over--and that`s how we`re going to get out. Bottom line: I`ll be able to make it happen because, whereas George Bush is incompetent and incapable of delivering on his promises, I know how to do it--that`s Senator Kerry`s message.

Is it realistic?

That`s a very partisan question. The reality is, making Iraq work is going to be very difficult whether the next president is George Bush or John Kerry.

Copyright 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Nun kommt Märchenonkel Allawi, der stellvertretende Bürgermeister des südlichen Baghdads, und erzählt uns die Desperation der Aufständigen ist die Ursache der steigenden Gewalt im Irak.
Das könntet auch von unserem ChefneoClown kommen.
Übrigens ist das geklaut. Damit ging auch schon mal Bush hausieren vor einigen Monaten.
Nun ist er übergegangen zur `Alles wird Gut`-Parole.

September 23, 2004
THE VISITOR
Iraq Leader, Seeking Support, Calls Rise in Violence a Sign of Desperation by the Insurgents
By WARREN HOGE

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 22 - Iraq`s interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, using his robust self-confidence to try to counter growing pessimism over conditions in his country, said in an interview on Wednesday that the rise in the number and ferocity of terror attacks in the country by insurgents was proof that they were getting not stronger, but weaker.

"They are becoming more deadly because we think they are getting more desperate," said Dr. Allawi, visiting the United States for the first time as leader of his country and delivering a relentlessly upbeat assessment of his embattled nation.

"We think they are on the defensive rather than on the offensive," he said. "We think that because our capabilities are improving, we are hitting them simultaneously, and as we are getting more precision, they are becoming deadlier and are attacking the recruits and the police because they have been hurt by these people."

Dr. Allawi, a 59-year-old former neurologist who took office in June, is here for a weeklong effort to build international support for his government and the American-led forces supporting it. He is to address a joint session of Congress and appear at a news conference with President Bush on Thursday and then return to the United Nations on Friday for a speech to the General Assembly.

On Wednesday, he broke off polishing his Congressional address - working before a teleprompter in a side room of his hotel suite - for a 45-minute interview with The New York Times.

Alternately gruff and jocular, and trading on his reputation for combative face-to-face encounters in Iraq, Dr. Allawi gave a lively account of persuading captured insurgents to drop their rebellion.

"I tell them, `What do you want? You want to get the multinational forces out of Iraq? If this is your problem, in January you will get elections. Then you can win the election and tell the Iraqi nation, we don`t want the multinational forces, let them go out. And if they don`t go out, then declare war on the United States, and if you do so, I`ll join you.` "

Dr. Allawi said that the increasingly brazen bombings that have killed men lining up to apply for jobs as police officers had not discouraged Iraqis from seeking to enlist. He saw this for himself last week, he said, when he visited a police headquarters in Baghdad, after an attack on Sept. 15 that killed 47 people.

"I saw hundreds and hundreds of youth waiting to join the police force with very high morals, very high spirits; they were very determined people," he said. "I was telling them, `Are you frightened?` and they said, `No, to the contrary, this is increasing our resolve.` "

He criticized news coverage of Iraq, saying that it focused only on violence and other setbacks and failed to capture the gains for Iraqi society.

"Of course, the media will report these suicidal crazy persons who will come and kill us, that is obvious, but the media overlooks that there are other areas which are improving," he said.

Since the interim government took power, he said, elections have been held in several localities and a national conference of 1,500 delegates was successfully held, choosing a national assembly. "This really demonstrates the will of the Iraqi people to see democracy," he said.

In Ramadi, the capital of restive Al Anbar Province, a town American convoys enter only heavily armed and at great peril, Dr. Allawi said that the number of "incidents" had dropped from 20 a day to two or three a day. He took a dismissive view of Moktada al-Sadr, the rebellious young Shiite cleric whose militias, in recurrent uprisings since the spring, have fought fierce battles with Americans in Najaf and elsewhere, calling him "a nuisance rather than an insurgent." With a small chuckle, he said, "Moktada al-Sadr now is becoming, frankly speaking, gradually an old story."

There have been off-and-on negotiations between the government and Mr. Sadr about whether the cleric could earn a place in politics by having his militias disarm. In the interview, Dr. Allawi took a harder line, saying that Mr. Sadr`s followers must not only lay down their weapons but that he and his men must face the judicial system.

"As far as Moktada al-Sadr and his lieutenants are concerned, some of them I accuse, some of them blew up oil industries, killed innocent lives," he said. "They have to be brought to justice; then, and only then, will they be allowed to become part of the political process."

Mr. Sadr`s militias fought the American military for two months after it was disclosed in April that, a year earlier, an Iraqi judge had issued a secret warrant for his arrest on charges of murdering a moderate Shiite cleric. In the truce that temporarily halted the fighting, the American forces agreed not to try to capture or kill him.

On Wednesday, Dr. Allawi said that Mr. Sadr`s forces were "disintegrating," with individuals coming forward to point out to security forces safe houses with dungeons where huge amounts of weapons are being uncovered. But he acknowledged that two areas of Baghdad remained troublesome: Haifa Street, and Sadr City, the vast Shiite slum, the scene of another round of fierce battles early Wednesday.

Still, Mr. Sadr`s forces represent only a part of the insurgency; guerrilla warfare is raging across much of the so-called Sunni triangle, the area north and west of Baghdad.

Dr. Allawi said that 30 percent of Iraq`s insurgents were foreigners from Al Qaeda or other groups. That is a far higher proportion than military commanders have suggested or that most experts believe.

He said another 60 percent of the armed opposition involves former Baathists linked to Saddam Hussein`s brutalities, while the remaining 10 percent were common criminals. That counters the suspicions of some experts that the American presence has antagonized some Iraqis into embracing violence.

He turned aside widespread concern over whether security could be improved enough by January to hold scheduled national elections, counting off the names of provincial capitals on his fingers and saying - in all but a few cases - "no problem." He concluded by declaring that a vote could be held now in 15 of Iraq`s 18 electoral districts.

The United Nations electoral assistance division is helping supervise the elections; Secretary General Kofi Annan said last week that he doubted a credible vote could be conducted under present security conditions. Depicting Iraq as the traditional power of its region, he delivered an ultimatumlike message to surrounding countries.

"Iraq has always been a leader in the region, that`s why we know we are talking from a position of strength with all our neighbors," he said. "We are not the aggressors. We want to see a peaceful neighborhood, and that`s why we say to them, `Help us to do this, because if you don`t help us now, we won`t be able to help you in the future when Iraq is back and stands on its own feet.` "

Erik Eckholm contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[steno]

Schon erstaunlich wie so ein Thread ganz simpel am Leben erhalten werden kann.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Nochmal was zu dem Thema, eine Bananenrepublik wählt. Kam gestern auch schon von Reuters.

September 23, 2004
2 Studies Find Laws on Felons Forbid Many Black Men to Vote
By FOX BUTTERFIELD

As many as one of every seven black men in Atlanta who have been convicted of a felony, and one of every four in Providence, R.I., cannot vote in this year`s election, according to a pair of studies released yesterday.

The studies, the first to look at felon disenfranchisement laws` effect on voting in individual cities, add to a growing body of evidence that those laws have a disproportionate effect on African-Americans because the percentage of black men with felony convictions is much larger than their share of the general population.

The study in Atlanta concluded that two-thirds of the gap in voter registration between black males and other ethnic and gender groups was attributable to Georgia`s felon disenfranchisement law.

"We have the conventional wisdom that African-American males register to vote at lower rates because of political apathy," said the study`s author, Ryan King of the Sentencing Project, a research and prisoners` rights group based in Washington. But the new data clearly indicate that "their registration is artificially suppressed by the disproportionate effect of their disenfranchisement."

The Atlanta study also found that about a third of black men who had lost the right to vote because of a felony had been convicted of drug crimes.

"This is important," Mr. King said, "because drug arrests are inherently discretionary." Other research has shown that blacks do not use drugs more than whites but are arrested on drug charges, and convicted, at a much higher rate.

Interest in the effect of felon disenfranchisement laws has increased since the presidential election of 2000, when George W. Bush won Florida by only 537 votes; an estimated 600,000 people in the state, most black, were barred from voting because of felony convictions.

Florida is one of nine states that permanently forbid a felon to vote, even after the prison term or time on probation or parole has been fulfilled. Neither Georgia nor Rhode Island goes that far; in both states, a felon can recover the right to vote after serving his time in prison or on probation or parole.

National estimates are that five million people, roughly 2.3 percent of the electorate, will be barred from voting in November by state laws that strip felons of voting rights. And Carl Route, a 47-year-old ex-felon who lives in Atlanta and works with the National Association of Previous Prisoners, says that even that number does not take full account of black men who do not vote because of a felony conviction.

"A lot of the guys I work with have no clue they are eligible to vote after they have served all their time," Mr. Route said. "They are just trying to survive, so they don`t want to be bothered by the process."

"When you`ve got food, clothing and shelter issues,`` he said, "you are not concerned with voting.``

Mr. Route, who was convicted in 1983 of possession of marijuana with intent to sell and sentenced to 10 years` probation, said he began to vote only two years ago, because, he said, Georgia`s law was so confusing.

The study in Providence, by the Rhode Island Family Life Center, which assists inmates returning home from prison, found that disenfranchisement was particularly concentrated in poor neighborhoods with large numbers of blacks.

For example, more than 40 percent of black men in several neighborhoods in south Providence are barred from voting.

The Atlanta study pointed out that such concentrations meant that more than the individual disenfranchised was affected: politicians are less likely to campaign in these neighborhoods, which are less likely to benefit from government spending.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 23, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Prince of Tides, Tacking and Attacking
By MAUREEN DOWD

LOS ANGELES — I had to come all the way to Hollywood to find Democrats who can actually sound sincere when they say John Kerry has turned a corner.

Mr. Kerry is looking for corners to turn in his campaign just as frantically as the president is looking for corners to turn in Iraq. (I rate Mr. Kerry`s chances higher.) But even here, among the right`s despised liberal cultural elite, some disenchanted Democrats are already lusting for the Clinton restoration in 2008.

"Kerry`s always trying too hard to prove his guy-dom," one influential Democrat sighed, "while Bush comes across as more of a real guy."

Republicans back in Washington are not only mocking the spandex-coated Mr. Kerry`s windsurfing video in their ads; they scoff at the notion that the wind`s at his back.

"I`m not sure it`s turning a corner to do Regis and Kelly," sneered one who has taken to talking about Mr. Kerry in the past tense.

The Bushies` perverse private calculation about why Mr. Kerry can`t get traction would be comic if it weren`t tragic: he can`t effectively argue that he could do something differently in Iraq because W. has so bollixed up the place that even a change at the top wouldn`t help.

"He`d never be able to get any other countries to help us," one Bush insider said. "Even the British only have 7,000 troops in Iraq, compared to our 150,000." (The London Observer reported that despite growing dangers in Iraq, the main British force will soon be cut by a third.)

Mr. Kerry has finally begun to fight back and put the focus on Iraq instead of Vietnam. His speech on Monday was compelling and, unlike W.`s toxic cotton-candy spin, has the additional advantage of being true.

Going after Saddam, as the senator says, was a diversion from our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden. We have "traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

We have, as Mr. Kerry says, a president and vice president who are "in denial" in a fantasy world, and who are guilty of "colossal failures of judgment." W. did "hitch his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military."

America`s credibility in the world has plummeted, as Mr. Kerry says, just at the time we have to deal with the truly scary spokes in the "axis of evil": the ones who are a real nuclear threat, not an imaginary one.

Yet Mr. Kerry`s case has a hollow center. He was asked at his press conference on Tuesday about W.`s snide reminders that his rival gave him authority to go to war (and, playing frat pledge to W.`s rush chairman, inanely agreed that he would still have voted to give that authority even if there were no W.M.D.).

That vote, he replied, was correct "because we needed to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for weapons. That`s what America believed."

Not all Americans.

The administration rolled the Democrats on the authorization vote. It was clear at the time that going after Saddam to punish Osama made no sense, that Cheney & Co. were going to use Saddam as a lab rat for all their old neocon agendas. It was clear, as the fleet sailed toward Iraq, that the Bush crew had no interest in diplomacy - that it wanted to castrate the flaccid U.N., the flower child Colin Powell and his pinstriped State Department, snotty Old Europe, and the despised Saddam to show that America is a hyperpower that is not to be messed with.

As I quoted a girlfriend saying in September 2002, a month before Mr. Kerry`s authorization vote, "Bush is like the guy who reserves a hotel room and asks you to the prom."

When Mr. Kerry says it was the way the president went about challenging Saddam that was wrong, rather than the fact that he challenged Saddam, he`s sidestepping the central moral issue.

It was wrong for the president to take on Saddam as a response to 9/11, to pretend the dictator was a threat to our national security, to drum up a fake case on weapons and a faux link to Al Qaeda, and to divert our energy, emotions and matériel from the real enemy to an old enemy whose address we knew.

It was wrong to take Americans to war without telling them the truth about why we were doing it and what it would cost.

It wasn`t the way W. did it. It was what he did.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Ein grundlegender Wandel der Politik der USA ist von keinem US-Präsidenten zu erwarten bei den politischen Denkansätzen in den USA.
Deshalb wäre es wichtig Gegenmodelle zu entwickeln, aber das ist aus Europa nicht zu erwarten mit seinen unterschiedlichsten Interessen.

September 21, 2004
"We Are Not Secure"
Kerry`s "Unwavering Commitment" to Securing a Middle East Realm

By GARY LEUPP

Kofi Annan, who replaced Egypt`s Boutros Boutros-Ghali as UN Secretary-General in 1996 (due solely to a U.S. veto of a second Boutros-Ghali term, probably resulting from the secretary-general`s support for Palestine) has for the last eight years avoided antagonizing the sole remaining superpower. But even the soft-spoken, controversy-shy, aristocratic Ghanaian recently told the BBC that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "illegal."

This was immediately treated by the U.S. corporate press as somehow controversial, while the U.S., U.K. and Australia indignantly sought clarification. But leading war advocate and neocon Richard Perle had informed a London audience last November that "international law" (if observed) would in fact have prevented the U.S. invasion. Most of the world already knew the Iraq attack was criminal, as did at least some of the proud criminals themselves. So one might expect that, here in das Heimatland, the presidential candidate from the Democratic Party (the rank-and-file of which oppose the war), would duly mention this in his campaign homilies. But no; instead we get from John Kerry the (accurate) accusation that "Bush misled this nation into war," along with the (dubious) assertion that the Massachusetts senator has a "plan to end the war" in Iraq "within four years," i.e., sometime during his presidency, having made sure it is not "a haven for terrorists."

It seems Kerry wants to ensure that the whole Middle East is free of "terrorists" (as the State Department selectively and idiosyncratically defines them) as a result of "reforms" he wishes to undertake during the presidency he so ineptly seeks. In an article published in Forward ("legendary name in American journalism and a revered institution in American Jewish life") August 27 entitled, "An Unwavering Commitment To Reforming the Middle East," the power-aspirant definitively set down his thoughts on the region, making it clear that he is committed to precisely the same world-transforming agenda as that of his rival. He begins with the statement, "Across the Middle East, the United States and Israel are facing a range of crucial security challenges."

[Comment.] This is true, of course, and since Kerry is here addressing a largely Jewish audience, he can justifiably focus on common U.S.-Israel goals as he sees them. But he might have added that all the countries in the Middle East are facing security challenges. Citizens of any nation who happen to live or travel in, for example, insecure war-ravaged Iraq, discontented Saudi Arabia, or insurrection-challenged Turkey are insecure. Syria and Iran face the ultimate security challenge: U.S. or U.S.-Israeli attack. Palestinians face numerous, daily security challenges, even the prospect of the "ethnic cleansing" of the West Bank. Kerry`s piece means to say, and were thus better titled, "An Unwavering Commitment To Reforming the Middle East to Meet Security Challenges to the U.S. and Israel in that Region So Hostile to Us Both."

Kerry immediately refers to Saudi Arabia, which (notwithstanding the July 2002 Defense Policy Board briefing sponsored by Richard Perle, which proposed regime change in the kingdom and called it both "the strategic pivot" of the Middle East and an "enemy of the USA"), has been on the margins of the Bush world-transforming program. (This is not, as Michael Moore hints in Fahrenheit 9-11, because of some conspiracy involving the Bush family and House of Saud, but because the administration---having embraced the neocons` approach to Iraq, Iran, Syria and Palestine--sees little advantage in demonizing the Saudi kingdom at this time.) But perhaps because the Bushites haven`t adequately claimed the cause of Saudi change, Saudi Arabia has emerged as Kerry`s pet target. "We are not secure," he declares, "while Saudi donors fund terror"

[Comment.] Of course the Saudi regime, probably the main target of al-Qaeda, wants very badly to eradicate terror cells on Saudi soil, and seems to be bending over backwards to meet U.S. demands for specific measures against Saudi organizations, citizens, and religious and financial institutions that support "terrorism." This is to protect itself, and also to deflect the heat Riyadh has felt unremittingly since 9-11. U.S. officials routinely express thanks, adding, "But still not enough!" To really be enough, Saudi efforts would have to include a termination for support of Palestinian organizations which Washington (but not Arab opinion) see as "terrorist" in relation, not to the U.S., but towards Israel (which it must be emphasized remains, technically speaking, a separate country). But the latter two are conflated in Kerry-thought as surely as they are in Bush-thought.

Nor are we secure, the Massachusetts senator continues, "while Iran pursues a nuclear weapons program"

[Comment.] Not that we (Americans) would be secure if it didn`t, or if it (like at least eight other nations) did actually have one. Security is of course a relative concept, and as such rhetorically manipulable. But the U.S. itself would be little more at risk if Iran had nukes than it has become since Pakistan acquired them. (When was the last time you lost sleep worrying about Pakistani nukes?) The above "we," in any case, is not the U.S. but "the United States and Israel" and it is fair to say that Iranian nukes would indeed make Israel less secure militarily, especially if in future it does something particularly offensive to the whole world, such as re-invade Lebanon, or Syria, or expel Palestinians from the West Bank. Israel would at least be obliged to factor into policy the nuclear status of a rival power. But that`s what many nations, including all of nuclear Israel`s neighbors, have had to do for some years now.

Nor are we secure, declares Kerry, "while Syria sponsors terrorist operations."

[Comment.] This refers to Syria`s hospitality towards Palestinian militant groups and Lebanon`s Hizbollah. Hizbollah attacked U.S. forces during Reagan`s ill-fated intervention in Lebanon in the early 1980s, viewing the U.S. presence as an extension of the Israeli invasion, which produced an international outcry and was widely condemned in Israel itself. If one wants to stoke American security fears about Syria, one only has to conflate Hizbollah with Syria (even though its ties have been more with Iran), and (having labeled any resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq as "terrorist"), with the Iraqi and "foreign" resistance fighters in the neighboring country. The fact is, Syria does not want to be invaded, and fearing invasion, is inclined to cooperate with the U.S. (President Assad`s aide Mohammed Nassif actually met with Richard Perle and Wolfowitz aide Jaymie Durnan in January 2002 to try to negotiate a rapprochement; the neocons were not interested in these, or Iraqi peace overtures.) http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11102003.html Syria has cooperated in the fight against al-Qaeda. But Washington, having pronounced Damascus "on the wrong side of history," and applauded Israeli attacks on the country, wants nothing other than regime change. Kerry wants it too.

"We are not secure," adds Kerry, "while Iraq is at risk of becoming a haven for terrorists."

[Comment.] At risk? Any competent analyst knows that Iraq has long since, in the wake of invasion, become such a haven. Even if stories of "foreign" (Arab) fighters, such as al-Zarqawi`s group, are exaggerated, and even if many described as "terrorists" are really legitimate Iraqi resistance fighters, surely in its very disorder, occasioned by unpopular occupation, Iraq attracts or produces "terrorists" as it never did under Saddam`s brutal rule. 30,000 civilian deaths can generate a lot of enraged relatives inclined to wreak vengeance, with what some would call "terrorism," on American troops, their allies and Iraqi collaborators. The longer the U.S. remains in Iraq, the less secure and more terror-targeted American troops will be. And the longer the war lasts, the more hatred it will generate globally towards the U.S. government, if not the American people, although some people don`t distinguish between the two. Indeed we are not secure, because George Bush`s policies are churning out terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.

"And," Kerry continues: "we are not secure while Israel, the one true democracy in the region, remains the victim of an unrelenting campaign of terror."

[Comment.] This is a democracy premised on a Jewish majority and Jewish privilege, which must not be threatened by the return of Palestinian refugees, or even by natural demographic trends that will inevitably produce a (voting) Israeli Arab majority population within decades, unless the situation is carefully engineered to sustain the Zionist project. Like Athenian democracy, it may allow for the passionate airing of alternate views. But it excludes from participation several million affected by its decisions. Is a "true democracy?" I suppose it`s as true as the Athenian, or that of the early U.S.A., the latter of course excluding the female, the African, the propertyless, and the populations subject to "Indian removal." There is a connection between the nature of this "democracy" and the terror it confronts.

"If we continue without a more effective strategy [to deal with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Palestine] we are not supporting our ally as best we can."

[Comment.] Kerry is saying: I can better implement the basic Bush plan than he can.

"For too long," he thunders, "America has not led, and Iran`s program has advanced. Let me say it plainly: a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. I believe we must work with our allies to end Iran`s nuclear weapons program and be ready to work with them to implement a range of tougher measures, if needed."

[Comment.] Totally on board John Bolton`s program! Kerry boasts that he co-sponsored in the Senate the "Syria Accountability Act" pushed for by Bolton, and unlike Bush will not delay in imposing further sanctions against Syria.

Further, he will lessen U.S. dependence of Middle East oil, presumably so that his administration`s policies won`t be hobbled by the need to cooperate with some of the above-named regimes. He will "use bold diplomacy to get governments to recognize the growing crisis of resurgent anti-Semitism, and take action to deal with it ---not hide it." I don`t know whom he refers to here as hiding this problem, but he declares "I will support the creation of an office within the State Department dedicated to combating anti-Semitism, as well as adding reporting on acts of anti-Semitism around the world to the State Department`s annual human rights reporting."

[Comment.] Sounds fine in principle, although he`s talking about tax dollars, and about a concept often misapplied and debated. (Should the State Department take a stand on Mel Gibson`s The Passion of the Christ? Or on the media`s handling of the Israeli spying investigation?) One might wonder whether an office to combat Islamophobia around the world (and especially in this country) might be just as needed and valuable at this time. Or why not a State Department office dedicated to fighting homophobia globally?

Kerry supports Ariel Sharon`s announced withdrawal from Gaza. But: "The success of the withdrawal," he states, "also requires a real Palestinian effort to establish security---to ensure Gaza does not remain a haven for terrorists to launch attacks on Israel. Experience has made very clear that for the Palestinians to meet this key test, new Palestinian leadership is required, as Yasser Arafat has proven himself not to be a partner for peace."

[Comment.] Plainly, should the withdrawal not occur, Kerry will blame the Palestinians and their democratically elected leader. Since the intifada will likely continue (the Palestinian Authority police apparatus, vitiated as it has been by Israeli attack, is probably unable to suppress it even if it wanted to), a President Kerry will be content to have the illegal settlers stay.

Kerry embraces the wall the world condemns, specifically joining the neocon unilateralists and declaring that the International Court of Justice should not discuss the matter. "I believe that we must stand with Israel, supporting our ally`s right to build a security fence and to allow its own Supreme Court---not the International Court of Justice---to address the issue of the route of the fence." Kerry will work with "the Palestinian community" to "empower new, responsible Palestinian leadership committed to a permanent end to terror and promotion of democracy." He agrees with Bush that the current leadership is not so committed, and that new, "responsible" leaders wait in the wings for help from the Americans (who`ve been so helpful and evenhanded all these years).

Kerry says he "will never compromise America`s special relationship with our ally Israel," and will "as Presidentnever pressure Israel to make concessions that will compromise its security."

[Comment.] Kerry (who once strutted and fretted his antiwar hour on the stage, that message heard no more when it became useful to depict his Vietnam war record as "heroism") is in effect telling his supporters:

I, reporting for duty as your Commander in Chief, will pursue the same objectives as my predecessor. I, like him, offer unwavering, unconditional support to Israel in its confrontation with Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians and anybody else, recognizing the political expediency of this stance, and understanding that a contrary position would mean political suicide. I will depict Arab nations not firmly aligned with the U.S., and even some that are, as enemies or threats. I will do the same with Iran. I will unite with my supporters in criticizing Bush`s "handling" of the war, but I will not challenge the assumption that the U.S. should now remake Iraq so that its government is friendly to both the U.S. and Israel. Not to do so---to suggest that we merely withdraw and leave Iraqis to local emerging leadership that might continue to dispute the very legitimacy of the Israeli state, and/or insist on a role of Islam in official life that might encourage anti-Zionism---would hurt my candidacy.

Kerry`s campaign is obviously responsive to the enormously influential pro-Israel lobby, that draws primarily on Southern Christian fundamentalist voters. But I don`t think his (or the Bush administration`s) stance on Iraq is actually determined by that lobby, and the Israeli question. The issue, rather, is this: In the aftermath of the Cold War, and the U.S. emergence as the sole (military) superpower declining vis-à-vis Europe and East Asia as an economic power, how should the U.S. deal with complicated, politically divided and vulnerable, oil-rich Southwest Asia? Washington could leave the region to its own leaders` devices (as international law suggests it do), or it can impose "regime change" such as it has already achieved in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush policy has been to damn the world, the United Nations, the Vatican and all who noted the obvious (that the invasion of Iraq was illegal), and to bully a handful of allies into significant cooperation in the Iraq occupation, while aspiring to acquire the lion`s share of contracts for reconstructing what it has destroyed and punishing war-foes by threatening to cancel the Saddam regime`s contractual obligations to them. The Kerry policy is to reconcile Europe (Russia, Germany, France) by promising to split the Iraqi pie in exchange for "peace-keeping" troops who will share the cost of ongoing, "globalized" occupation, and to treat Syria and Iran as problems to be confronted through consultation with allies. This is the nuanced difference between the two candidates running for president on the ticket of U.S. imperialism, who while appealing to all politically powerful constituencies interested in the Middle East, represent rival factions of an ideologically unified, ruling "two party system" that they`d like to export (under the brand name "Democracy") to the complicated and resistant outside world.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch`s merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.

He can be reached at: [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]



Der Link zu dem vorherigen Posting, wegen der Links
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp09212004.html

[Joerver]

US jet sent 600 miles to keep Cat Stevens away

Tania Branigan
Thursday September 23, 2004

The Guardian
American officials diverted a transatlantic flight 600 miles in the belief that the presence of Yusuf Islam, the charity worker and pop star formerly known as Cat Stevens, posed an imminent threat to national security, it emerged yesterday.

The 56-year-old singer was escorted off the plane by FBI agents after customs officers realised that his name was on a "watchlist". He was due to be deported to the UK last night after questioning. His 21-year-old daughter was allowed into the US.

Mr Islam, who is best known for hits such as Morning Has Broken, Wild World and Peace Train, last visited the United States in May. His name was added to the list subsequently and a US government source said he was refused entry because of fears that he had financially supported Hamas.

"He was placed on the list because of concerns about activities that could potentially be related to terrorism," said a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.

It is not clear why officials chose to divert the flight - at substantial cost and delaying other passengers for six hours - rather than detain Mr Islam on his arrival in Washington.

Muslim leaders on both sides of the Atlantic condemned the US decision, with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) describing it as "a slap in the face of sanity".

Mr Islam was denied access to Israel four years ago after claims he had donated money to Hamas, but said he had "never knowingly supported any terrorist groups - past, present or future."

He sold 50m albums before renouncing music for charity and educational work after converting to Islam. He founded several Muslim schools in London and as head of the Islamia Schools Trust has met the prime minister and the Prince of Wales. He donated profits from recent album sales to the September 11 bereaved, saying that no "right-thinking" Muslim could condone the attacks.

The Transportation Security Agency (TSA), part of the Department of Homeland Security, is authorised by law to maintain a list of people suspected of posing "a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety".

But American civil liberties groups have warned that the criteria for placing people on the list are at best hazy. Dozens of people have complained of being included unfairly.

United Airlines flight 919 from London to Washington was diverted to Bangor, Maine, on Tuesday night after US customs officers told the TSA that Mr Islam was on board. Airline officials had failed to spot his name earlier.

Mohammad Abdul Bari, the MCB`s deputy general, said: "If prominent, well-known personalities are treated like this, then how can there be bridge building?"

Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the denial of entry to internationally-respected Islamic figures "sends the disturbing message that even moderate and mainstream Muslims will now be treated like terrorists".
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

The hollow world of George Bush

The power of positive thinking is the president`s shield from reality
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 23, 2004

The Guardian
The news is grim, but the president is "optimistic". The intelligence is sobering, but he tosses aside "pessimistic predictions". His opponent says he has "no credibility", but the president replies that it is his rival who is "twisting in the wind". The UN secretary general speaks of the "rule of law", but he talks before a mute general assembly of "a new definition of security". Between the rhetoric and the reality lies the campaign.

In Iraq, US commanders have plans for this week and the next, but there is "no overarching strategy", I was told by a reliable source who has just returned after assessing the facts on the ground for US intelligence services. The New York Times reports that an offensive is in the works to capture the insurgent stronghold of Falluja - after the election. In the meantime, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists linked to al-Qaida operate from there at will, as they have for more than a year. The president speaks of new Iraqi security forces, but not even half the US personnel have been assigned to the headquarters of the Multinational Security Transition Command.

George Bush`s vision of the liberation of Iraq has melted before harsh facts. But reality cannot be allowed to obscure the image. The liberation is "succeeding", he insists, and only pessimists cannot see it.

In July, the CIA delivered to the president a new national intelligence estimate that detailed three gloomy scenarios for Iraq`s future, ranging up to civil war. Perhaps it was his reading of the estimate that prompted Bush to remark in August that the war on terrorism could not be won, a judgment he swiftly reversed. And at the UN, Bush held a press conference where he rebuffed the latest intelligence.

Bush explained that, for him, intelligence is not to inform decision-making, but to be used or rejected to advance an ideological and political agenda. His dismissal is an affirmation of the politicisation and corruption of intelligence that rationalised the war.

In his stump speech, which he repeats word for word across the country, Bush explains that he invaded Iraq because of "the lesson of September the 11th". WMD goes unmentioned; the only reason Bush offers is Saddam Hussein as an agent of terrorism. "He was a sworn enemy of the United States of America; he had ties to terrorist networks. Do you remember Abu Nidal? He`s the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered because of his religion. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad, as was his organisation."

The period of Leon Klinghoffer`s murder in 1985 on the liner Achille Lauro (by Abu Abbas, in fact) coincided with the US courtship of Saddam, marked by the celebrated visits of then Middle East envoy Donald Rumsfeld. The US collaborated in intelligence exchanges and materially supported Saddam in his war with Iran, authorising the sale of biological agents for Saddam`s laboratories, a diversification of his WMD capability.

The reason was not born of idealism, but necessity: the threat of an expansive Iran-controlled Shia fundamentalism to the entire Gulf.

The policy of courting Saddam continued until he invaded Kuwait. But realpolitik prevailed when US forces held back from capturing Baghdad for larger, geostrategic reasons. The first Bush grasped that in wars to come, the US would need ad hoc coalitions to share the military burden and financial cost. Taking Baghdad would have violated the UN resolution that gave legitimacy to the first Gulf war, as well as creating a nightmare of "Lebanonisation", as secretary of state James Baker called it. Realism prevailed; Saddam`s power was subdued and drastically reduced. It was the greatest accomplishment of the first President Bush.

When he honoured the UN resolution, the credibility of the US in the region was enormously enhanced, enabling serious movement on the Middle East peace process. Now this President Bush has undone the foundation of his father`s work, which was built upon by President Clinton.

Bush`s campaign depends on the containment of any contrary perception of reality. He must evade, deny and suppress it. His true opponent is not his Democratic foe - called unpatriotic and the candidate of al-Qaida by the vice-president - but events. Bush`s latest vision is his shield against them. He invokes the power of positive thinking, as taught by Emile Coue, guru of autosuggestion in the giddy 1920s, who urged mental improvement through constant repetition: "Every day in every way I am getting better and better."

It was during this era of illusion that TS Eliot wrote The Hollow Men: Between the idea/ And the reality/ Between the motion/ And the act/ Falls the Shadow."

· Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is Washington bureau chief of salon.com

sidney_blumenthal@ yahoo.com
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Wofür eine humanistische Bildung nicht alles gut ist:
Nicias warned that it was the wrong war against the wrong enemy and that the Athenians were ignoring their real enemies — the Spartans — while creating new enemies elsewhere.

COMMENTARY
... Unless It`s All Greek to Him
By Barbara Garson
Barbara Garson is the author of the 1960s antiwar play "Macbird" and, most recently, "Money Makes the World Go Round" (Penguin, 2002).

September 23, 2004

During a lull in the war between Athens and Sparta, the Athenians decided to invade and occupy Sicily. Thucydides tells us in "The Peloponnesian War" that "they were, for the most part, ignorant of the size of the island and the numbers of its inhabitants … and they did not realize that they were taking on a war of almost the same magnitude as their war against the Peloponnesians."

According to Thucydides, the digression into Sicily in 416 BC — a sideshow that involved lying exiles, hopeful contractors, politicized intelligence, a doctrine of preemption — ultimately cost Athens everything, including its democracy.

Nicias, the most experienced Athenian general, had not wanted to be chosen for the command. "His view was that the city was making a mistake and, on a slight pretext which looked reasonable, was in fact aiming at conquering the whole of Sicily — a considerable undertaking indeed," wrote Thucydides.

Nicias warned that it was the wrong war against the wrong enemy and that the Athenians were ignoring their real enemies — the Spartans — while creating new enemies elsewhere. "It is senseless to go against people who, even if conquered, could not be controlled," he argued.

Occupying Sicily would require many soldiers, Nicias insisted, because it meant establishing a new government among enemies. "Those who do this [must] either become masters of the country on the very first day they land in it, or be prepared to recognize that, if they fail to do so, they will find hostility on every side."

The case for war, meanwhile, was made by the young general Alcibiades, who was hoping for a quick victory in Sicily so he could move on to conquer Carthage. Alcibiades, who`d led a dissolute youth (and who happened to own a horse ranch, raising Olympic racers) was a battle-tested soldier, a brilliant diplomat and a good speaker. (So much for superficial similarities.)

Alcibiades intended to rely on dazzling technology — the Athenian armada — instead of traditional foot soldiers. He told the Assembly he wasn`t worried about Sicilian resistance because the island`s cities were filled with people of so many different groups. "Such a crowd as this is scarcely likely either to pay attention to one consistent policy or to join together in concerted action…. The chances are that they will make separate agreements with us as soon as we come forward with attractive suggestions."

Another argument for the war was that it would pay for itself. A committee of Sicilian exiles and Athenian experts told the Assembly that there was enough wealth in Sicily to pay the costs of the war and occupation. "The report was encouraging but untrue," wrote Thucydides.

Though war was constant in ancient Greece, it was still usually justified by a threat, an insult or an incident. But the excursion against Sicily was different, and Alcibiades announced a new, or at least normally unstated, doctrine.

"One does not only defend oneself against a superior power when one is attacked: One takes measures in advance to prevent the attack materializing," he said.

When and where should this preemption doctrine be applied? Alcibiades gave an answer of a sort. "It is not possible for us to calculate, like housekeepers [perhaps a better translation would be "girlie men"], exactly how much empire we want to have. The fact is that we have reached a state where we are forced to plan new conquests and forced to hold on to what we have got because there is danger that we ourselves may fall under the power of others unless others are in our power."

Alcibiades` argument carried the day, but before the invasion, the Athenian fleet sailed around seeking allies among the Hellenic colonies near Sicily. Despite the expedition`s "great preponderance of strength over those against whom it set out," only a couple of cities joined the coalition.

At home, few spoke out against the Sicilian operation. "There was a passion for the enterprise which affected everyone alike," Thucydides reports. "The result of this excessive enthusiasm of the majority was that the few who actually were opposed to the expedition were afraid of being thought unpatriotic if they voted against it, and therefore kept quiet."

In the face of aggressive posturing, Nicias appealed to the Assembly members to show true courage.

"If any of you is sitting next to one of [Alcibiades`] supporters," Nicias said, "do not allow yourself to be browbeaten or to be frightened of being called a coward if you do not vote for war…. Our country is on the verge of the greatest danger she has ever known. Think of her, hold up your hands against this proposal and vote in favor of leaving the Sicilians alone."

We don`t know how many Athenians had secret reservations, but few hands went up against the war.

In the end, the Athenians lost everything in Sicily. Their army was defeated and their navy destroyed. Alcibiades was recalled early on; Nicias was formally executed while thousands of Athenian prisoners were left in an open pit, where most died.

The Sicilians didn`t follow up by invading Attica; they just wanted Athens out. But with the leader of the democracies crippled, allies left the Athenian League. Then the real enemy, Sparta, ever patient and cautious, closed in over the next few years. But not before Athens descended, on its own, into a morass of oligarchic coups and self- imposed tyranny.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options



Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Ich habe gehört, dass R. Blanco nun versucht in die USA einzureisen.

COMMENTARY
When Really Bad Pop Stars Go Really Bad
The Cat Stevens threat looms.
By Andy Borowitz
Andy Borowitz is author of "The Borowitz Report: The Big Book of Shockers," to be published in October by Simon & Schuster.

September 23, 2004

Hours after being refused entry into the U.S., 1970s recording star Cat Stevens lashed out at the government Wednesday, vowing to resume his recording career "immediately" as the ultimate act of revenge.

Appearing on the Arabic-language satellite TV channel Al Jazeera, a visibly angry Stevens — now known by the name Yusuf Islam — threatened to attack the United States with the full force of his insipid folk-rock music.

Brandishing an acoustic guitar, the erstwhile pop star warned that "no one in America would be safe from my insidious melodies" before launching into a spirited rendition of his 1971 hit "Peace Train."

A spokesman for the CIA said experts needed more time to study the chilling video but that it appeared to be authentic: "We do not believe that anyone but the real Cat Stevens remembers the lyrics to `Peace Train.` "

On the campaign trail, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry blasted President Bush for the Cat Stevens incident, saying Bush`s reckless actions had resuscitated an irritating singer`s long-dormant recording career.

"When George Bush took office, Cat Stevens was not a threat," Kerry told a rally in Akron, Ohio. "Through a successful policy of containment, his music had mainly been limited to classic rock stations. But now, thanks to George Bush`s misguided decision to provoke Cat Stevens, we may be subjected to renditions of `Morning Has Broken` and `Moonshadow` and `Wild World` for years to come."

Aides to Kerry passed out lyrics of songs by Stevens, including this one from 1970: "I wish I knew, I wish I knew; what makes me, me, and what makes you, you. It`s just another point of view, ooo. A state of mind I`m going through."

For his part, Bush defended the decision, telling a Denver audience, "Cat Stevens is the first front in the war on terror, with Seals and Croft a close second."




Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/191971_means23.html

How much can we depend on polls?

Thursday, September 23, 2004

By MARIANNE MEANS
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

WASHINGTON -- Public opinion polls, both public and private, as ubiquitous as 24-hour cable news, are causing more confusion than clarity and raising this question: If polls suddenly all start pointing in the same direction, could they become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Some recent polls indicate that since the GOP convention in New York, President Bush has pulled ahead of his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry.

These polls disagree about the size of the disparity. The prestigious Gallup Poll put Bush ahead by 8 percent or 13 percent, depending upon whether those surveyed were considered likely to vote. But other polls indicate the contest has not changed much since the GOP convention and the two remain essentially neck-and-neck.

The impact of these polls upon the campaigns and the public has never been fully understood. Bush, for his part, insists he never reads or takes polls, a political fib so transparent it cannot be taken seriously. Kerry, however, has never tried to pretend he does not notice how he is doing in the polls. When they reported his primary campaign was dying last winter, he took out a mortgage on his Boston townhouse to finance new advertising and shook up his staff for a last-ditch fight.

It worked and here he is. So far, he seems to be reacting similarly to the latest bad news. He has already rearranged his campaign organization again, adding respected Clinton advisers to his basic cadre. He has begun to toughen up his speeches, tighten his message and sound more combative.

He likes to describe himself as a "good closer" in political combat. But his supporters may be a different case. Will the disappointing poll figures discourage them or energize them? Will the looming possibility of four more years of George W. Bush scare them into redoubling their efforts or will they give up? And what about the impact on Bush? Will he become cocky, careless and overconfident? Or will he steadily keep doing what he`s been doing, painting Kerry as indecisive and weak, and keep piling up the poll numbers? Or will his supporters be deluded into thinking it`s all over and they can relax, lowering his turnout and his tally? There is no way to really gauge the psychological impact of such polls on turnout. It`s an intangible factor, along with the weather on Election Day, the intensity of disaffection with special interests and the efficiency of all those volunteers assigned to get voters to the polls.

Then there are mounting questions over the accuracy of these screwy new computerized voting machines, as well as organized efforts to challenge the validity of voter registration -- particularly among minorities. The science of polling -- I guess it`s a science -- has come a long way since the 1948 election, when the industry got a black eye after polls predicted that President Truman would be soundly defeated by New York Gov. Thomas Dewey.

The Literary Digest -- which had polled only the nation`s relatively few telephone owners (who were richer than their phoneless fellows) -- went out of business after being so disastrously wrong.

The Gallup Poll survived, although it was also wrong, having stopped polling two weeks before the election. Elmo Roper, then a pre-eminent pollster, discontinued polling in early 1948 on the grounds that Dewey had already won. Dewey believed the popular consensus that he had won, too, and the press became obsessed with the names of possible Cabinet selections. Only Truman refused to accept his defeat, and campaigned against the "do-nothing Congress" and the "little man on the wedding cake" right up to Election Day.

Post-election studies indicate that Truman won because the voters liked his fighting attitude in the last weeks of the campaign. Truman hammered on a simple theme -- the lousy Congress, then under Republican control. Bush knows the importance of the single theme; Kerry hasn`t figured it out yet. Or if he has, his complex mind gets bored with it.

Also Truman didn`t shy away from negative campaigning. He attacked, attacked, attacked. Forget what the pollsters say about voters disliking negative campaigning. Who is getting all the attention? Vice President Dick Cheney, the master of hate. Who is being ignored? Democratic veep nominee John Edwards, the honey-tongued optimist. As for modern polls, I wonder about their accuracy. Can the phone banks be perfect? Can they reach cell phones? Years ago, during a presidential campaign, I went door-to-door with a very pleasant, non-threatening older woman in a middle-class ethnic neighborhood seeking voter opinions for an established pollster. Doors were slammed in our faces. I never felt we were being told the truth. Afterward, over coffee, we discussed the results. Not much. She was indifferent; her pay was based on the number of respondents.

During the 1960 campaign, legend has it, the journalist Joseph Alsop took clipboard in hand to ask real voters their real thoughts about his friend, Sen. John F. Kennedy, whose Catholicism was an issue. At the first door, he asked how the lady of the house felt about the candidates. She said she was for Nixon. "Madam, you are a bigot," he exploded. So much for neutral polling. Ah, well, that can`t be a problem any more, can it?

Marianne Means is a Washington, D.C., columnist with Hearst Newspapers. Copyright 2004 Hearst Newspapers. She can be reached at 202-263-6400 or [e-mail].

© 1998-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 255 Bush 273
[/TABLE]
Das interessanteste an der Seite sind immer die Bemerkungen des Votemasters zu den Polls, besonders was alles als Poll verkauft wird.
Dabei ist es garnicht sicher, wie uns #21892 erklärt, ob ein Poll die Wirkung hat, die der Pollster beabsichtigt.
Ob a self-fulfilling prophecy oder eine Gegenreaktion ist nicht vorherzusagen.

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]


http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep23.html

News from the Votemaster

The American Research Group has now released the polls it took in every state plus D.C. so for the first time we have a recent poll in every state. Not all of the spreadsheet entries use the ARG poll because, as explained yesterday, the most recent poll wins, where the middle of the polling period determines the date. In some states other polls have come in since the ARG poll in that state.

So what is the result of all 50 states having recent polls? Today`s score is Kerry 255, Bush 273, a small lead for Bush and just barely above the 270 votes in the electoral college. But with a dozen states in the tossup category, the race is still a tie.

But wait, there are two polls on the spreadsheet that are virtually certain to be badly wrong. Maryland is an exact tie now. But if you look at the graph for Maryland, it is clear that Maryland has been strongly for Kerry for months and Democratic for years. Bush has no more chance in Maryland than Kerry does in Alabama. So if we assign Maryland to Kerry, the score is then Kerry 265, Bush 273. Seems like a clear, if small, Bush victory, no?

Well, not so clear. Consider Colorado. A small and relatively unknown polling firm, Ciruli, has announced that Bush is ahead in Colorado by an implausible 55% to 39%, a 14% lead. There have been six polls since Aug 16 in Colorado, every single one of them had the race either exactly tied or one of the candidates was ahead by 1%. Even the Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies had Bush only 1% ahead as recently as Sept 13. Assuming the folks at Ciruli just made up some numbers, and Bush is ahead by 1%, everything depends on the Colorado referendum to split the electoral vote proportionally to the popular vote.

Fortunately, a poll has just come out on the referendum and currently it looks like it might just pass. If Bush is 1% ahead in Colorado, he would get 5 votes in the electoral college and Kerry would get 4, changing the score to Kerry 269, Bush 269. If West Virginia Bush elector Richie Robb votes for a Republican other than Bush, as he has threatened, then the score becomes Kerry 269, Bush 268. In both cases the election is decided by the new House with each state getting one vote. In all scenarios, the Republicans will control the majority of delegations in the new House, so the House will elect Bush. Depending on who controls the Senate, Cheney or Edwards becomes vice president. Could go either way. If the Democrats hang onto the Louisiana Senate seat, as they have for over 100 years. there is a good chance the Senate will be split 50-50. In that case, Cheney gets to cast the deciding vote.

But wait, suppose Kerry picks up 1% in Colorado and he gets 5 of Colorado`s votes in the electoral college and Bush gets 4. Then the score becomes Kerry 270, Bush 268 and Kerry becomes president. Unless the Republicans go to the Supreme Court and ask the Court to invalidate the Colorado referendum. If the court upholds the referendum, Kerry wins; if the court invalidates it, Bush wins. Thus if the vote on election day reflects today`s map except Kerry wins Maryland easily and squeaks through in Colorado, the Supreme Court gets to decide another election. It could happen.

I have not changed the spreadsheet to reflect a possible split in Colorado because it is a bit early to say the referendum will pass. Also I have not split Nebraska because Bush will surely carry all the congressional districts and I have not split Maine because Kerry will certainly carry the southern one and probably the northern one as well. As time goes on, these decisions will be reevaluated. In any case, we have a real horse race again. The debates will probably be crucial. For once, a discussion of the issues may decide the election instead of all the mud we have had so far.

Juan Cole, a professor of history at the University of Michigan, has written a short, but riveting article translating the war in Iraq into American terms. It is very sobering. Well worth the five minutes it will take to read it.
Projected Senate: 48 Democrats, 51 Republicans, 1 independent To bookmark this page, type CTRL-D (Apple-D on Macintoshes). If you are visiting for the first time, welcome. This site has far more about the election than just the map. See the Welcome page for more details.

-- The votemaster

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
Informed Comment
[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Thoughts on the Middle East, History,and Religion
[/TABLE][Table align=left]

[/TABLE]

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Iraq Violence Kills at Least 24, Wounds over 100
Sistani Criticizes Election Plans

The guerrilla war and American military assertiveness together wrought havoc in several areas of Iraq once again on Wednesday.

Baghdad

In downtown Baghdad, guerrillas used a car bomb to strike at persons in a retail district who were waiting to sign up for service in the Iraqi National Guard. The huge explosion killed 6 individuals and wounded 54.

There were also clashes at Haifa Street, a stronghold of the Iraqi branch of the radical Monotheism and Holy War movement. The number of resulting casualties is unknown as I write.

A US strike on Abu Ghurab west of Baghdad a week ago may have killed a leader of Monotheism and Holy War, Abu Anas al-Shami, a Jordanian Muslim radical and author.


Sadr City

In east Baghdad, according to Naim al-Qaabi, spokesman for the Sadr movement, a US push into that part of the capital resulted in clashes that left 15 dead and 52 wounded.

Samarra

Some 40 guerrillas fought US forces near Samarra on Wednesday. The US forces called in an air strike on a house, killing 2 Iraqis and wounding 2. Although a supposed ceasefire had recently been called by city leaders of Samarra, allowing US troops back into the city, it seems clear that Samarran guerrillas are still operating in the area and that the situation remains dicey.

Tikrit

Guerrillas used a roadside bomb to attack US troops near Tikrit, killing 1 US soldier.

Nasiriyah

Three American crew members of a Black Hawk helicopter were wounded when it crashed soon after take-off on Wednesday near Nasiriyah. The cause of the crash was not announced, but US helicopters frequently take rocket-propelled grenade fire in Iraq.

Najaf

On Monday and Tuesday, US Marines and Iraqi national guards raided offices of the Muqtada al-Sadr movement near the shrine of Ali, arresting several officials close to the radical young cleric. The American-appointed governor, Adnan al-Zurfi, maintained that they had found weapons caches in the sweep.

The action appears to contravene the terms of the cease-fire earlier reached with the Sadrists, and the raid was condemned by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Sistani deeply dislikes the Mahdi Army, but he no doubt feels that if the various parties cannot trust that a settlement under his auspices can be trusted, it will weaken his authority to help settle future disputes.

Dexter Filkins of the New York Times reports that Sistani is increasingly worried about the form of the elections scheduled for January. The current plan to have nation-wide pre-selected party lists will unfairly favor the expatriate political parties, he fears, and he is threatening to withdraw his support from the process.

I personally would be shocked and amazed if elections are actually held in January. If they are, it would not be surprising if the expatriate parties managed to set things up so as to dominate them. They are the ones who have been organizing abroad for the past twenty years and have experience in politicking. But if a lot of local Iraqis feel disenfranchised by the results, then the elections won`t produce a stable government. Moreover, Sistani`s approval would be key to such a government`s hopes for success.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is burning up money and ammunition so fast in Iraq that it has prematurely had to dip into a $25 billion emergency fund: "If the additional money were not available this month, armed services either would have to cut other programs to shift money to the war or face the prospect of new troops going to battle without sufficient body armor, armored Humvees and other protective gear." The war is costing about $1 billion a week.

posted by Juan @ [url9/23/2004 06:23:39 AM]http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109592642003776324[/url]

Cat Stevens Deported

I know that it is faintly ridiculous that Cat Stevens a.k.a. Yusuf Islam was deported on Wednesday from the US after the airplane he was on was diverted to Maine, on the grounds that he is a dire security threat to the country. David Letterman in his monologue allowed darkly as how the Feds were no doubt gunning for Gordon Lightfoot next. He also wickedly observed that despite Osama Bin Laden being at large, what with Cat Stevens deported and Martha Stewart in jail, he felt a lot safer.

But I have a hard time rushing to Yusuf Islam`s defense because I never forgave him for advocating the execution of Salman Rushdie in 1989. He endorsed Khomeini`s "fatwa" or death edict against Rushdie for the novel, Satanic Verses. He later explained this position away by saying that he did not endorse vigilante action against Rushdie, but would rather want the verdict to be carried out by a proper court. These are weasel words, since he was saying that if Khomeini had been able to field some Revolutionary Guards in London to kidnap Rushdie and take him to Tehran, it would have been just dandy if he were then taken out and shot for having written his novel. In my view, that entire episode of the Khomeini fatwa showed how sick some forms of Muslim activism had become, and served as a foretaste of al-Qaeda`s own death warrant served on a lot of other innocent people.

And, the disavowal wasn`t even consistent. AP reported on March 8, 1989, that "Cat Stevens Endorses Rushdie Death Sentence Again," writing:


` Former pop singer Cat Stevens reiterated his support for the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini`s death sentence against Salman Rushdie, saying the author`s treatment of Islam was "as good as stabbing Moslems in the heart." . . . "It`s got to be seen as a deterrent, so that other people should not commit the same mistake again," Stevens said in an interview with the television show "World Monitor," produced by The Christian Science Monitor . . Stevens, who said the novel`s treatment of Islam was "as good as stabbing Moslems in the heart," suggested that Rushdie should repent writing the book. "If he manages to escape (the death sentence) he still has to face God on the day of judgment," he said. "So I would recommend to him to sincerely change his ways right now." `



At the time, Rushdie`s life was in imminent danger, and Cat Stevens was skating pretty close to inciting to murder. (What else is the "deterrent" he is talking about?)

So, to steal from Bill Maher:

NEW RULES: If you advocate the execution of novelists for writing novels, you and John Ashcroft deserve one another.

posted by Juan @ 9/23/2004 06:01:30 AM

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]


Für die Reform-Partei tritt Nader in Florida an.

[Joerver]

NEWS ANALYSIS
Flip-flopping charge unsupported by facts
Kerry always pushed global cooperation, war as last resort
- Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Thursday, September 23, 2004

Washington -- No argument is more central to the Republican attack on Sen. John Kerry than the assertion that the Democrat has flip-flopped on Iraq.

President Bush, seated beside Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, said Tuesday: "My opponent has taken so many different positions on Iraq that his statements are hardly credible at all.``

The allegation is the basis of a new Bush campaign TV ad that shows the Democratic senator from Massachusetts windsurfing to the strains of a Strauss waltz as a narrator intones: "Kerry voted for the Iraq war, opposed it, supported it and now opposes it again.``

Yet an examination of Kerry`s words in more than 200 speeches and statements, comments during candidate forums and answers to reporters` questions does not support the accusation.

As foreign policy emerged as a dominant issue in the Democratic primaries and later in the general election, Kerry clung to a nuanced, middle-of-the road -- yet largely consistent -- approach to Iraq. Over and over, Kerry enthusiastically supported a confrontation with Saddam Hussein even as he aggressively criticized Bush for the manner in which he did so.

Kerry repeatedly described Hussein as a dangerous menace who must be disarmed or eliminated, demanded that the U.S. build broad international support for any action in Iraq and insisted that the nation had better plan for the post-war peace.

There were times when Kerry`s emphasis shifted for what appear to be political reasons. In the fall of 2003, for example, when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean surged to the top of Democratic polls based on an anti-war platform, Kerry`s criticism of the president grew stronger. There are many instances in which clumsy phrases and tortuously long explanations make Kerry difficult to follow. And there are periods, such as last week, when the sharpness of Kerry`s words restating old positions seem to suggest a change.

Yet taken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago.

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm (Hussein) by force, if we ever exhaust ... other options,`` Kerry said 23 months ago on the Senate floor before voting to authorize the force, imploring Bush to take the matter to the United Nations.

"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community," Kerry said, insisting that Bush work with the United Nations. "If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out,`` Kerry said.

Republicans have hit the flip-flop charge hard. The Republican National Committee produced an 11-minute video, widely distributed on the Internet, which features dozens of seemingly inconsistent Kerry statements and the soundtrack to the 1960s television show "Flipper.`` Bush supporters distributed Kerry flip-flop sandals to delegates at the GOP convention last month, the Bush campaign produced a Kerry flip-flop game for its Web site, and the president brings it up almost every day on the campaign trail.

Kerry on Iraq Oct. 9, 2002 Senate floor speech on Iraq resolution: "In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days -- to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.`` Sept. 9, 2003 Speech announcing presidential campaign, Patriot`s Point, S.C.: "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. I believe that was right -- but it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition -- and with no plan to win the peace.`` March 18, 2003 Statement on the eve of the attack on Baghdad: "Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. ... Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. ... My strong personal preference would have been for the administration ... to have given diplomacy more time.`` Dec. 3, 2003 Speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City: "Simply put, the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history.`` Sept. 20, 2004 New York University: "President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq?``

The crux of the flip-flopping charge is based on pitting Kerry`s pointed criticism of the war against his October 2002 vote to authorize the use of force, a vote the Democratic senator defends to this day.

Republicans are not the only ones who characterize the vote as an endorsement of war. Many Democrats, including Dean, warned that a vote in favor of the resolution would be tantamount to giving Bush a blank check to go to war. Even today, many Democrats are aghast at Kerry`s insistence that, knowing everything he knows now, he would cast the same vote.

Kerry, who was one of 29 Democratic senators to support the resolution, said the vote was appropriate to strengthen the president`s hand in negotiations, and he draws a distinction between his vote and an endorsement of the March 2003 attack.

"Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq,`` Kerry said on the eve of the vote. "Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal.``

Republicans ridicule such distinctions and use Kerry`s vote as the basis for their assertion that Kerry once favored the war.

"He voted for it,`` said Republican national chairman Ed Gillespie when asked Wednesday to back the charge that Kerry supported the war. "Look at the coverage at the time, it was pretty clear what was going on.``

Yet in the fall of 2002, several months before the air strikes on Baghdad began, Bush himself insisted the vote was not the same as a declaration of war but instead gave him the hand he needed to negotiate the peace.

"If you want to keep the peace, you`ve got to have the authorization to use force,`` Bush said in September 2002. "It`s a chance for Congress to say, `we support the administration`s ability to keep the peace.` That`s what this is all about.``

The Bush campaign frequently cites Kerry`s seemingly incongruous statement at a West Virginia rally in March as another example of his inconsistency.

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,`` Kerry said regarding the Bush administration`s request for more funding for the Iraq operation.

The line has been used in Bush campaign commercials, and the campaign distributed a memo Tuesday suggesting the vote raises doubts about Kerry`s commitment to U.S. troops.

The White House is aware that the statement does not reflect a contradiction but an inelegant way of defending a pair of Senate votes. Kerry voted for a measure that paid for the $87 billion by reducing tax cuts for those who earn more than $300,000. He voted against a measure that paid for the $87 billion by adding to the deficit.

The biggest shifts in Kerry`s language seem to appear at the high-water marks of the war -- shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 and after the capture of Hussein the following December -- when he seems less critical of the Bush policy.

Two days after Bush stood before the "Mission Accomplished`` sign and declared major combat over, Kerry participated in a forum with rival Democratic presidential candidates.

ABC`s George Stephanopoulos asked the candidates if the war was the right decision at the right time.

"I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity,`` Kerry said, "but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I support him and I support the fact that we did disarm him.``

By contrast, Dean in response to the same question called it the "wrong war at the wrong time,`` using language very similar to what Kerry has said recently.

Perhaps the words that Kerry will have the hardest time explaining today are those he uttered three days after Hussein was captured. Dean, who had emerged as Kerry`s strongest challenger for the Democratic nomination, said that while Hussein`s capture was good news, it had not "made America any safer. ``

Kerry seized on the statement, telling students at Drake University, "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don`t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.``

Kerry`s enthusiastic words seem to conflict with his statement Monday at New York University.

"Saddam Husein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But ... the satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure, `` Kerry said.

For a candidate who has been in elected office nearly a quarter of a century, Kerry has at times shown a remarkable inability to explain the nuances of his position.

Asked by radio host Don Imus last week to explain how he could be so critical of the war yet stand by his vote to authorize the use of force, Kerry responded with a 324-word answer, including a discussion of no-fly zones and Iraqi tribal separatism.

The response left Imus -- a self-described Kerry supporter -- perplexed.

"I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox,`` Imus told listeners when the interview was over. "This is my candidate, and ... I don`t know what he`s talking about.``
Editor`s note

An examination of President Bush`s stance on the war in Iraq will be published next week.



E-mail Marc Sandalow at [e-mail].

Page A - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/23/M…
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004
Mr. Bush and His 10 Ever-Changing Different Positions on Iraq: "A flip and a flop and now just a flop."
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageD…
9/22/04

Dear Mr. Bush,

I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!
Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:

1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because ‘The Donald R.’ went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam’s right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.

1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn`t like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.

1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.

1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

2000: WE DON`T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:

“I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don`t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we`ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously.” --October 3, 2000

2001 (early): WE DON`T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:

Powell: “We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” --February 24, 2001

Rice: “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let`s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” --July 29, 2001

2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN`s sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.

2003: WE DON’T BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!

2003: “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!

2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That`s what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.

Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?

I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won`t use them both on you. In fact, I`ll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.

And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn`t vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.

That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn`t support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can`t wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.

We can`t take another minute of it.

Yours,

Michael Moore
[e-mail]
www.michaelmoore.com

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Bush fails to raise Jewish support

Polls show president`s support for Israel will not win votes from the traditionally Democratic mainstream who recoil from his religious zeal
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Thursday September 23, 2004

The Guardian
George Bush has failed to win over any of the traditional Jewish backing for the Democrats, despite the unwavering White House support for Israel and a vigorous campaign by the Republican party.

In a poll released yesterday by the American Jewish Committee, Jewish voters preferred John Kerry to Mr Bush by a margin of nearly three to one: 69% to 24%.

It is an improvement on Mr Bush`s 19% Jewish support in 2000 but well short of the Republicans` hope of 30%.

Although Jews form only 2% of the US population, they vote in great numbers, and are prominent in this year`s battleground states - Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - where their support could be pivotal.

In Florida they make up 3.9% of the population, more than the margin of victory in the 2000 election.

Mr Bush appeals to a section of the Orthodox community because of his support for the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, and his open religiosity, but most Jews are not changing sides.

David Harris, director of the American Jewish Committee, said: "Most American Jews tend towards the liberal side of the political equation, and therefore instinctively lean towards the Democratic candidate, and this year may be no exception, despite a president with a strong track record on US-Israeli relations, and who is waging a war on radical Islamic terrorism."

This is the second poll to confound Republican hopes: in a survey by the Democratic pollsters Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner for the National Jewish Democratic Council, Mr Kerry had 75% support and Mr Bush 22%.

Anna Greenberg said the findings showed that Jews were moved far more by domestic concerns than US policy towards Israel, and that Jewish voters did not necessarily agree with Mr Bush`s wholehearted support of Israel.

"What is clear from this survey is that Jewish voters don`t necessarily believe that Bush is better on Israel than Kerry," she added.

The AJC poll showed an uneasiness with the administration`s leadership of the "war on terror", and in Iraq, areas in which it expected to pick up Jewish support.

Fifty-two per cent of respondents disapproved of Mr Bush`s stewardship of his "war on terror" and 66% were unhappy with it: levels of discontent far higher than in the general population, and 57% thought the threat of a terror attack on America had increased because of the war with Iraq.

There was also dissatisfaction with Mr Bush`s unilateralist approach to world affairs: another area of strong contrast with Mr Kerry, who has said consistently in campaign speeches that America needs to work with the UN and other institutions. Sixty-four per cent said America should not act alone on the international stage.

Bill Clinton won 80% of the Jewish vote in 1992, and Al Gore 79% in 2000. Only Ronald Reagan managed to break through, winning 40% in 1980, but pollsters say that had more to do with many Jewish voters` dread of Jimmy Carter than an affinity with the Republican party.

Nevertheless, the Republican campaign organisers have made a concerted effort to break through this year, as part of a long-term strategy to woo minority voters away from the Democrats. In particular they hoped to win Orthodox voters - devoting special sessions at the party convention to religious Jewish delegates - and Jews from the former Soviet Union.

The Bush administration has been the most unabashedly supportive of Israel, culminating in Mr Sharon`s visit to Washington last April, when Mr Bush broke with 30 years of diplomatic tradition by endorsing his Gaza withdrawal plan.

But although Jews may appreciate Mr Bush`s support for Israel, they balk at the open religiosity of his administration, and his party`s moral crusading on issues such as gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion.

"The conservative social agenda gives Jewish voters serious pause," the Republican pollster Frank Luntz admitted.

"They have to decide what is more important to them: their support of his position on Israel or their opposition to his social agenda."

Open religiosity does not scare away the entire community. Among the 10% who define themselves as Orthodox, there is relative comfort with the idea of asking faith-based bodies to provide services to the young and elderly, according to Abba Cohen, Washington director of the Agudath Israel, which represents ultra-Orthodox Jews.

"I think there is a real affinity for Bush ... in the Orthodox community," he said, but added: "Generally, no one expects the Jewish community`s voting patterns to change dramatically."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Lynchburg, VA (IWR News Parody) - At a $10,000 a plate Republican tent revival in Virginia last night, President Bush promised the snake handlers in attendance that he would do his best to ring Armageddon if he is reelected.

Donors at the campaign event were treated to a festive bar-b-que feast of endangered species and given one-way tickets to the Promised Land via an giant escalator being constructed in Lynchburg by Jerry Falwell and his Bigoted Nazis for Jesus Foundation.

*Note: My apologies go to Pieter Bruegel for using his wonderful painting [url"The Triumph of Death"]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/death.jpg as a background for this satire.[/url]
[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Thursday, September 23, 2004
War News for September 23, 2004

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

Bring ‘em on: Insurgents reportedly execute two Italian hostages.

Bring ‘em on: Heavy fighting, air strikes continue in Sadr City.

Bring ‘em on: Iraqi oil official assassinated near Mosul.

Bring ‘em on: One US soldier killed in patrol ambush near Mosul.

Bring ‘em on: One US soldier killed, four wounded in Baghdad car bombing.

Bring ‘em on: US patrol attacked near Samarra.

Bring ‘em on: Retaliatory air strikes, further fighting reported near Samarra.

How to piss off the most powerful man in Iraq. “According to people with knowledge of the talks, Ayatollah Sistani is concerned that the nascent democratic process here is falling under the control of a handful of the largest political parties, which cooperated with the American occupation and are comprised largely of exiles. In particular, these sources say, Ayatollah Sistani is worried about discussions now under way among those parties to form a single ticket for the elections, thus limiting the choices of voters and smothering smaller political parties.”

New Zealand withdraws troops from Iraq.

Secret Service investigates angry mother of KIA soldier.

Idiot. “President George W. Bush corrected himself Wednesday after mixing up the names of terrorists Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas during several recent campaign speeches.”

Another idiot. “The rise in the number and ferocity of terrorist attacks by insurgents in Iraq is proof that they are getting weaker, not stronger, according to Iraq`s interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi.” Allawi has the RNC talking points down pat. Up is down, black is white, increased insurgent activity means they’re only getting weaker, and the only reason people don’t believe it is because of the liberal media.

Lieutenant AWOL at the UN. European newspapers, including some that supported the American military campaign in Iraq, were largely critical of Mr. Bush`s address on Tuesday to the United Nations, accusing him of being unrealistic about the worsening situation in Iraq. The Financial Times contended in its lead editorial that the Bush administration ‘systematically refused to engage with what actually has happened in Iraq’ - namely, in the newspaper`s view, that American policy ‘mistakes’ had "handed the initiative to jihadi terrorists" who ‘now have a new base from which to challenge the West and moderate Islam.’”

Casualty Reports

Local story: North Dakota soldier killed in Iraq.

Local story: Texas Marine killed in Iraq.

Local Story: Ohio Air National Guardsman wounded in Iraq.

Local story: Alabama Guardsman wounded in Iraq.

Local story: Colorado soldier wounded in Iraq.

Local story: New York Guardsman wounded in Iraq.


86-43-04. Pass it on.



# posted by yankeedoodle : 8:04 AM
Comments (2) | Trackback (0)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

I+II #20911, III #20951 IV #21003.

High Plains Grifter
Part five: Bush`s Mask of Anarchy

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair09222004.html

By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

And many more Destructions played
In this ghastly masquerade,
All disguised, even to the eyes,
Like Bishops, lawyers, peers, or spies.

. . .

And Anarchy, the Skeleton,
Bowed and grinned to every one,
As well as if his education
Had cost ten millions to the nation.

Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Mask of Anarchy

By the smirk, ye shall know him. It is Bush`s identifying mark. The cruel sneer fissures across his face at the oddest moments, like an execution or a spike in the deficit or the news of a light-stick being rammed up the anus of an Iraqi prisoner. It hints at this own sense of inviolateness, like the illicit grin of some 70s porn star--which may not be so far off target if even half of what Kitty Kelley dishes in her delicious book The Family about Bush`s peregrinations turns out to be true.

Flash to Bush`s most famous moment, the instant when he supposedly redeemed his tottering presidency. There at ground zero, megaphone in hand, using firefighters as props, Bush squeaks out his war cry. It won`t be a war of justice, but revenge, cast as a crusade against evil. Then, hands palsied with anxiety, he closes with his signature sneer and gives the game away.

The mask drops, revealing in a flash, like a subliminal cut, the dark sparkle of the real Bush. You get the sense that he detests his own supporters, those who refuse to see through the act. But perhaps that`s giving Bush too much credit. He reminds me of one of the early popes or one of the more degenerate emperors, such as Domitian: cruel, imperious, humorless, and psychologically brittle.

Bush and his team turned 9/11 into a kind prime-time political necrophilia, an obscene exploitation of the dead. For example, Flight 93 was transformed into Bush`s Masada, where the passengers committed group suicide by bringing the plane down into the remote Pennsylvania field in order to save the White House. Of course, this was a lie.

Bush lied about his actions in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. He lied about why the US was attacked. He lied about what his own government knew in advance about impending plans by al-Qaeda to attack targets in the US. He lied about how much the wars would cost. About weapons of mass destruction. About the relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden. About the progress of the war. These daily manipulations of the truth aren`t impromptu faux pas. Bush is kept on a tighter leash by his staff than any president in US history. He`s not permitted extemporaneous comments. Bush`s prevarications roll right off the teleprompter.

In the memorial service at the National Cathedral, Bush announced his mission: "Rid the world of evil." Part of that evil would, naturally, be the burdensome tax rates on the super-rich.

Bush was hot for war without congressional debate. "I`d rather have them [American troops] sacrificing on behalf of our nation than, you know, endless hours of congressional testimony." And they were primed to give him any thing he wanted. Any thing at all. No one rose to stop him. No one would even question him at the precise moment he most needed to be restrained.

The remote-control war on Afghanistan is a shameful chapter in American history. It rode unbridled on the fervor of a kind of national bloodletting against one of the most destitute nation`s on earth, which had only the most tangential responsibility for the events of 9/11. More than 3,400 civilians perished, most of whom had never heard of Osama Bin Laden.

The Pentagon drilled Kandahar and other Taliban strongholds with cruise missiles and pulverized convoys of pack mules with unmanned Predator planes armed with Hellfire guns. The ground war was turned over to the Northern Alliance, a CIA-financed band of thugs with a bloodier reputation than the Taliban.

Why do they hate us? Bush proffered the two word cue-card answer: Our freedom. But how could this be? Only a few years ago the Mujahideen, the Taliban and the Chechen separatists were hailed by neo-cons and neo-libs alike as "freedom fighters."

Yes, they knew them very well indeed. They had not only traded with the enemy. They had created them. Bin Laden and Mullah Omar were armed, funded and sheltered by the CIA in its insane proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. A $3 billion war that brought to power the most tyrannical and fundamentalist`s sect this side of Falwell`s Liberty Baptist College. The Taliban regime was fired by an unquenchable hatred of the West, a political pathology it acted out through the violent suppression of the nation`s own women, homosexuals and academics. Then came the first Gulf War, the US bases on Saudi soil, the misguided adventure into Somalia, the blind support of the bloody Israeli suppression of the second Intifada. Al-Qaeda, financed by Saudi millions and sequestered by the Taliban, turned its attention to the great Satan, which was indeed acting like a malevolent titan across the globe. The events of 9/11 have blowback written all over them.

In the end, though, the Taliban weren`t toppled. They simply dispersed back into the Pashtun tribal areas from which they arose, where they knew the US and its mercenary army would never come to get them. As recounted in Seymour Hersh`s Chain of Command, the few ground engagements were US troops faced off with the Taliban proved embarrassing for the Pentagon. And today the Taliban have reasserted their control over most of Afghanistan. The only city that remains under the uneasy grip of Hamid Karzai and his CIA masters is Kabul, the old British capital which has never been a Taliban stronghold.

So much for the opening act. As Condoleezza Rice put it, Bush, the conquistador in a jogging suit, soon got bored with "swatting flies."

(Torturing flies was, of course, a favorite past time of Domitian. According to Seutonius, "At the beginning of his reign, Domitian used to spend hours in seclusion every day, doing nothing but catching flies and stabbing them with a keenly sharpened stylus. Consequently, when someone once asked if anyone was in there with the Emperor, Vibius Crispus made the witty reply, `Not even a fly." Domitian, that wanton boy emperor, was also the inspiration for the famous line in Lear.)

Bush wanted to put away such childish things and squash bigger game. Iraq, naturally.
Part six:
Coda: The House Rules

Even Laura couldn`t stop him. By most inside accounts, the first lady opposed the war on Iraq. She told Bob Woodward on the eve of the war that she found the prospect of the invasion horrifying. Later she whispered to others of being repulsed by the killing of Iraqi children and American soldiers. Generally, Bush cleaves to Laura like a security blanket. Since 1988, he hasn`t spent more than two consecutive nights away from her. Still, he denied her on Iraq, just as he has done on abortion, which Laura demurely supports.

His father also couldn`t deter him. Poppy Bush opposed the invasion of Iraq, reportedly fretting that Junior was wrecking the global coalition that he`d built. The old man thought that the toppling of Saddam would destabilize the Middle East and the occupation would be a bloody quagmire that would end with many Americans dead and a fundamentalist regime in control of much of Iraq. He sent his warnings through emissaries, such as his old National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. Scowcroft wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal opposing the war. The text of the piece had been floated by Bush, Sr., who gave it the thumbs up. It went to press on August 15, 2002 under the title "Don`t Attack Saddam." Plank by plank, Scowcroft ripped apart the Bush brief for war, as if it were a dilapidated barn. He said that the sanctions and UN inspections were working. Saddam was essentially contained and didn`t pose a threat to the US, Israel or other protectorates in the Middle East.

Scowcroft also blew up the notion that Saddam had cosseted Al Qaeda. "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the September 11 attacks. Indeed, Saddam`s goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them...There is virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the US to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making military operations more difficult and more expensive." The occupation and reconstitution of Iraq, Scowcroft warned with vivid prescience, could be bloody, protracted and might ultimately result in a fundamentalist regime more hostile to US interests than Iraq was under Saddam.

The article was warmly received by Colin Powell and Richard Armitage at the State Department, who wanted some breathing room from their rivals in the Pentagon. Armitage in particular seemed to be looking for a way to stick it to Cheney and Rumsfeld. He advised Powell to use the Scowcroft column to tell Rumsfeld to "Fuck off." Typically, Powell, always reflexively subservient, declined to press the advantage opened by his former colleague.

Meanwhile Scowcroft`s broadside enraged Cheney and Rumsfeld. Being experienced hands at this game, they didn`t attack their old associate frontally. Instead, they sent Condoleezza Rice out to lambaste Scowcroft. She accused the apex insider of betraying the home team and demanded that he muzzle his objections to the war. Shamefully, Scowcroft backed down, sulking mutely in his holding pen at the Scowcroft Group, his international lobbying firm headquartered in DC, content to be Cassandra for a day.

The prickly George W. was peeved at his father for trying to pull the rug out from under his planned conquest of Baghdad. He sniped that he wasn`t about to recapitulate the mistakes of his father in regard to Saddam or the tax code. He privately ridiculed his father`s lack of bravado in failing to take out Saddam in 1991, which the president characterized as a lack of nerve typical of those inclined toward diplomacy. Then in an interview with Bob Woodward, Bush, Jr. twisted the knife one last, fatal time. Bush confessed that he never consulted his father on the Iraq war. "You know, he is the wrong father to appeal to for strength," Bush said. "There is a higher father that I appeal to." Notice the implication here: his own father was weak. W.`s war on Saddam was in many ways not to redeem his father or avenge him, but a way to outdo him. Bush goes from choir boy to frat boy in a nanosecond. On the eve of the war, he gloated to Italian prime minister Sylvio Berlusconi, "Just, watch us, we`re going to kick Saddam`s ass."

As Seymour Hersh discloses in Chain of Command, the decision to invade Iraq, high on the agenda of the neo-cons in Cheney`s office and the Pentagon since the election, had been given the greenlight almost immediately after the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. At 2.40 in the afternoon on September 11, Rumsfeld convened a meeting of his top staffers. According to notes taken by an aide, Rumsfeld declared that wanted to "hit" Iraq, even though he well knew that Iraq was not behind the attack. "Go massive," ordered Rumsfeld. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

For Rumsfeld and his gang, 9/11 was an opportunity more than a hardship. It augured a war without end, a war without rules, a war without fiscal constraints, a war where anything was permitted and few questions asked. Almost immediately the Secretary of Defense conjured up his own personal hit squad, Joint Task Force-121, which he endearingly refers to as his "manhunters." Though we wouldn`t hear about it for months, this operation launched the kidnappings, wholesale round-ups, assassinations, and incidents of torture that are only now coming partially to light.

Of course, it can`t all be pinned on Rumsfeld and his band of bureaucratic thugs. It goes right to the top. On February 7, 2002, Bush signed an executive order exempting captured members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban from the protections of the Geneva Conventions. With that stroke of the pen, Bush affixed his imprimatur to the prosecution of his wars unbound by the constraints of international law. That secret imperial decree set into motion the downward spiral of sadism-as-government-policy which led directly to the torture chambers of Camp Cropper and Abu Ghraib and obliterated the last molecule of moral authority from Bush`s global war. Of course, such concerns are mere trifles to these cruise missile crusaders.

* * *

From the beginning, the problem was concocting a rationale for the Iraq war, as the hunt for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan turned into a futile game of bomb and chase and anthrax letters and terror alerts kept the American public pinioned on tenterhooks. Rumsfeld ordered his number 3, the arch-neocon Douglas Feith, to establish the Office of Special Plans to develop the case for war against Iraq, a case built on raw information supplied mainly by Iraqi defectors under the control of Ahmed Chalabi. Another crucial source was Israeli intelligence, which was pushing hard for the ouster of Saddam. A similar war council was set up in Cheney`s office, under the control of his chief of staff Scooter Libby.

For its part, the CIA realized that its rivals in the Pentagon and the White House were attempting to wrest control of the brief for war. Cheney and Rumsfeld had long loathed Tenet for his timidity and distrusted many CIA analysts has being sympathetic to the Powell / Armitage axis of diplomacy at the State Department. Cheney in particular fumed that the CIA and the State Department were badmouthing his pal Chalabi and had conspired to freeze $92 million payments to the Iraqi National Congress. "Why are they denying Chalabi money, when he`s providing unique intelligence on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction?" The spigot was soon turned back on.

And to stay in the game, the CIA began to play along. Over the course of the next year, the CIA briefings for Bush became more and more bellicose. But they contained all the empirical rigor of silly-putty. Agency analysts knew that Iraq`s military was in a decrepit condition; its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs were primitive at best; and its links to al-Qaeda non-existent. Yet, as James Bamford reported, CIA analysts were to instructed to bend their reports to bolster Bush`s martial ambitions. "If Bush wants to go to war, it`s your job to give him a reason to do so," a top CIA manager told his staff. It wasn`t long before George Tenet himself was calling the case for war "a slam dunk."

This wasn`t exactly a covert operation. In fact, Paul Wolfowitz let the cat out of the bag before the bombs started falling on Baghdad. "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction because it was one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz gloated.

Why WMDs? For starters, they knew they could hook the Democrats into biting on that issue. After all, back in 1992 Al Gore himself had led the charge against Bush I for failing to topple Saddam in 1991, invoking the very same threat. "Saddam Hussein`s nature has been clear to us for some time," Gore wrote in a New York Times essay. "He is seeking to acquire ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons; it is only a matter of time...Saddam is not an acceptable part of the landscape. His Baathist regime must be dismantled as well...We should have bent every policy-and we should do it now-to overthrow that regime and make sure that Saddam is removed from power."

Wolfowitz understood the political lay of the land. The WMD threat paralyzed the Democrats into giving Bush carte blanche for war. Wolfowitz also knew he could count on the press playing along, fanning anxiety on the homefront about Saddam`s murderous intentions. Shortly after 9/11, Rumsfeld and his gang set up a special propaganda office in the Pentagon,which admitted that it intended to plant false stories in the foreign press. Evidently, they didn`t have to worry about a similar operation for the US press, which seemed eager to cultivate its own fantastical scenarios.

The brahmins at the New York Times gave reporter Jayson Blair a merciless public flogging for his harmless flights-of-fancy. The destruction of Blair was overtly racist, suggesting that the scandal illustrated the perils of a zealous pursuit of affirmative action. Contrast this with the Time`s agonizing comedown on its mound of stories on Iraq`s non-existent weapons of mass destruction that daintily elided all mention of the name Judith Miller. Yet, Miller`s cynical and malign front-page fictions, cribbed from her intimate contacts with the crook Ahmed Chalabi and his frontman Richard Perle, functioned as official fatwas for Bush`s jihad against Saddam. Thousands perished due in part to Miller`s fantasies, but she writes on, immune to the carnage her lies sanitized.

The thinly sourced stories were patently bogus to the attuned eye, but that didn`t stop the flock of other war-maddened reporters, such as the equally gullible Jeffrey Goldberg at The New Yorker, from peddling their alarmist fantasies. Take Dan Rather, lately stung by airing apparently forged documents regarding Bush`s ghostly tenure in the Texas Air National Guard. These days the Rove machine targets Rather as the poster boy for liberal bias in the media . Yet not so long ago Rather, part owner along with Donald Rumsfeld of a sprawling high desert ranch in New Mexico, confessed that he was willing to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt when it came to war and measures like the Patriot Act.

"I want to fulfill my role as a decent human member of the community and a decent and patriot American," Rather told Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post. "And, therefore, I am willing to give the government, the president and the military the benefit of any doubt here at the beginning. I will give them the benefit of the doubt, whenever possible, in this kind of crisis, emergency situation."

Hold on, Mr. Rather. that`s not a slippery slope; it`s the sheer face of Half Dome.

So, with no resistance from the press or the so-called opposition party, Bush got his war.

Despite the fear mongering and threat inflation, Saddam`s slave army of conscripts didn`t fight back. Battered by a decade of sanctions and two week`s worth of saturation bombing (including illegal cluster bombs), they didn`t have the means, the will or the desire. Not until later, when the occupation, where the military essentially served as armed guards for what the neo-cons hoped would be the corporate plunder of Iraq, turned vile and bloody.

Anxious for a victory celebration, Bush, the cross-dressing in chief, put on his flight suit and was ferried onto the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, where, braying like Caligula on the shores of Britain, he pronounced the war over and hailed himself as victor. Up to that day, when Bush told the world that major combat operations had concluded, 141 American soldiers had been died in Iraq. Then the real killing begin.

Two or three a day. One day after another. Week after week. Month by month. Bring `em on, he said, hiding out in his ranch. And so they did. A current blood swirled through the summer and autumn, Americans, Brits, and Italians. And Iraqis. By the thousands.

There wasn`t a good photo-op to be found. Normally, war presidents find time to console the wounded and grieve with the families of the slain. But Bush didn`t want any bloodstains on his flight suit, fearing political forensics teams would use the evidence against him in the 2004 election.

The longer the occupation went on, the worse it got. In July, Saddam`s sons Uday and Qusay, the sadists of the Tigris, were killed in a villa in Mosul. Their corpses were displayed before the world press in a wind-buffeted tent like slabs of meat in a butcher shop. No one in Iraq cared about their fate. Until that barbarous moment. Then came the uprisings in Fallujah and Najaf, the rise of al-Sadr, and the exposure of the Sadean circus going on after dark at Abu Ghraib. By June of 2004, it was obvious to nearly everyone who was paying attention the US had lost Iraq.

Bush acted oblivious to the carnage. He sequestered himself from the press, refused to read the papers, got his news ladled to him in palatable bite-sized bits by Condi Rice. When he made the occasional public appearance, he delivered fidgety non-sequiturs, as divorced from reality as the vapid mutterings of Liza Minelli.

So what was it all about? It was about oil, of course. Oil and fealty to Israel. And blood vengeance. And politics. And multi-billion dollar no bid contracts for political cronies. And empire building. And even cowboy chutzpah. Most of all, it was about collusion. That`s how republics are undermined and replaced by empires. Go read Tacitus or Twain.

Bush`s path to war was cleared by the Democrats, who were passive at best and deeply complicit at worst. Take House Leader Dick Gephardt and Senator Joe Lieberman, who rushed to the White House to stand side-by-side with Bush in a Rose Garden war rally, where they pledged their support for the invasion of Iraq.

John Kerry, a man who gives gravitas a bad name, went along with the war and refused to retract his support even after it became obvious that the grounds for the invasion were bogus at best and fabricated. (Kerry has been wrongly diagnosed as a chronic flip-flopper. He`s simply a flipper. The senator and war criminal does a lot of gymnastical contortions of his position, but he keeps landing in the same place time after time.) So did his faithful sidekick John Edwards. And the rest of the Democratic leadership.

Look across the political taiga of the Democratic Party; it is a landscape denuded of any fresh sprigs of resistance. Even the august Russ Feingold`s regular objections seem like perfunctory exercises, mere footnotes for the record. Feingold is the bland moral accountant of the senate. Dry and austere. He is also ignored, by the press and the bosses of his own party, partly because he is so bland. But mostly because he is usually right.

But most don`t even express regrets. Take Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Nearly a year after the war was launched, after every pretext had dissolved away and the US military found itself mired in a bloody and hopeless occupation, Daschle pronounced himself satisfied with the progress of the war. On February 19, 2004, Daschle told the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce: "I give the effort overall real credit. It is a good thing Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. It is a good thing we are democratizing the country." He also assured the business leaders of the Great Plains that he was not the least upset the over the bogus pre-war intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. As the summer of 2004 turned to autumn, Daschle, locked in a tight reelection race with Jim Thune, launched TV ads touting his support of the war, highlighted by a photograph of the senator being hugged by Bush. There you have it. Harmony in government. It boils down to a shared faith in the imperial project, a raw certitude in the righteousness of their collective crusade.

The cardinal rule of a grifter`s game is to control both sides of the action. Under those rules of engagement, the house (read: empire) always wins.

Part One: The Ties That Blind #20911

Part Two: Mark His Words #20911

Part Three: More Pricks Than Kicks #20951

Part Four: Jesus Told Him Where to Bomb #21003

Part Five: Bush`s Mask of Anarchy

Coda: The House Rules

Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature and, with Alexander Cockburn, Dime`s Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

URL: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,129…

Amendment puts Colorado in world`s eye

Proposal to divide electoral votes may put court in charge

By Jim Tankersley, Rocky Mountain News
September 22, 2004

Warnings of a catastrophic case of déjà vu for the 2004 presidential election pop up almost daily in news pages from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., to Paris.

In them, the election ends extremely close, a lone state`s electoral votes land in legal limbo, and the U.S. Supreme Court once again decides who will be president.



That lone state isn`t Florida. It`s Colorado.

Everyone`s talking about it. Except Coloradans.

The scenario begins with Amendment 36, a proposal on the Nov. 2 ballot that would change how Colorado casts its nine electoral votes, which all currently go to whomever wins the state.

If approved, the measure would divide the electoral votes proportionally among candidates based on the popular vote - starting this year. If President Bush beats John Kerry 51 percent to 49 percent, for example, Bush would take five votes and Kerry would earn four.

If that split is enough to influence the election - it would have produced a President Al Gore in 2000 - the measure is almost guaranteed to land in court. Legal scholars have proclaimed it ripe for a constitutional challenge.

Media outlets have blared the possible implications around the nation and the globe. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the Paris daily Le Monde all have run stories. ("Les républicains du Colorado partent en guerre contre l`"amendement 36.") A Danish TV crew plans one soon.

Newsweek columnist George F. Will called the initiative "November`s most portentous vote" last month.

Colorado voters have seen the issue relegated to a back burner so far, behind a tight presidential race, a hot Senate election and a couple higher-profile ballot initiatives.

More than half the respondents to a Rocky Mountain News/ News 4 poll didn`t feel strongly for or against the measure.

"I just don`t think most people play out the line of causality on this" in Colorado, said Ken Bickers, a political science professor at the University of Colorado. "They just haven`t gotten to it yet."

When they do, supporters and opponents await with a few simple arguments.

Proponents, including Democratic state Sen. Ron Tupa, of Boulder, and the Colorado League of Women Voters, say the measure would make elections more fair, more reflective of the "one person, one vote" concept.

They hope it will spark a nationwide reform that would essentially burn down the Electoral College, state by state.

"This is something that is instinctively very popular among voters," said Rick Ridder, a Denver political consultant running the campaign to pass the measure. "Who doesn`t want to make their vote count?"

Opponents - including Gov. Bill Owens, many Republicans and some Democrats - offer three types of rebuttal.

They say the measure would reduce Colorado`s national influence. What candidate, they argue, would campaign here for the one or two electoral votes realistically up for grabs - and what president would keep Colorado voters in mind when considering highway funding or military base closures?

They question the motives of the measure`s primary benefactor, Jorge Klor de Alva, a university president who lives in California and who supporters say simply wants to reform the Electoral College.

And opponents say this year, partisans on both sides risk giving away half the prize of the tightly fought presidential race.

"In the short term, no one really wins," said Katy Atkinson, a consultant leading the fight against the measure, "and in the long term, no one wins."

Independent analysts say the issue forces Colorado voters to think strategically: Whom do I pick for president, when do I vote for him (early, absentee or on Election Day) and how do I vote on Amendment 36 to best help my candidate?

"The logic is, every voter in Colorado should be thinking strategically, depending on his preferences," said Jack Rakove, a Stanford University history professor who has written extensively on the Electoral College and the Constitution.

"But to do that, you have to go down to the wire. You have to look at both local and national polls. That`s a lot to ask most people to do."

Judges, not voters, may decide the measure`s fate in the end.

Constitutional scholars say the biggest lawsuit potential lies in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors" for president.

The key word is "legislature." The question is whether a ballot initiative is the same as a "legislature" under the Constitution - in other words, whether voters themselves can choose how electoral votes are allocated.

Backers say they chose Colorado because state case law supports making such changes by petitioning onto the ballot. At least one local professor, Richard Collins at the Byron White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado, agrees.

"No one would dispute that ballot initiative is part of the legislative process of our state," he said.

Bickers, the Colorado political science professor, calls the constitutional issue "a pathway to the federal courts system" - and perhaps to the kind of Florida-2000-esque scenario that has the national media abuzz.

"Whatever the outcome," he said, "it puts Colorado squarely in the middle of a huge political fight."

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Link mit einer Einführung:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1842" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1842

Why We Must Leave Iraq
By Jonathan Schell

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, once a supporter of the war in Iraq, has been rethinking his position. The day after Senator John Kerry`s speech at NYU attacking the President`s war policies, Cohen wrote, "I still don`t think the United States can just pull out of Iraq. But I do think the option is worth discussing."

Well, let`s discuss it.

The United States should just pull out of Iraq.

There are many issues in politics that are very complicated. The war in Iraq is not one of them. Common sense in regard to this war rests on two rock-solid pillars:

(1) The United States should never have invaded Iraq.

(2) Now it should set a timetable to withdraw and leave.

These two propositions go together. The litany of reasons why it was wrong to invade Iraq -- that there were no weapons of mass destruction in the country, no ties to Al Qaeda and only the dimmest prospect of democracy -- are the same as the reasons why it is now wrong to remain there.

And in truth, the war would have been an even greater mistake if the reasons given for it had been based on reality-if the weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda had existed. People don`t have to ask themselves today what might have happened if Vice President Cheney had been correct in saying, as he did before the war, that Iraq had "reconstituted its nuclear weapons" and if CIA director George Tenet had also been correct in saying that the sole circumstance in which Saddam might use weapons of mass destruction would be if his power were threatened. Had both men been correct, there might have been a use of weapons of mass destruction against American troops in the Iraq theater, or even on US soil (if the ties to Al Qaeda had also been real), and a possible use of nuclear weapons by the United States in retaliation.

How fortunate we are that Cheney, at least, was factually mistaken! That he was wrong is the bright side, if you like, of the current mess. His disastrous factual errors may have saved us from his catastrophic policy errors. Nor has the war brought with it any new justification for itself. On the contrary, it has added fresh reasons for leaving. If the story of the occupation so far -- a story of scarcely imaginable incompetence, misfired intentions, collapsing plans, multiplying horrors and steadily growing resistance -- teaches a single clear lesson it is that the United States is a radicalizing force in Iraq. The more the United States pursues the goal of a democratic Iraq, the farther it recedes into the distance. The longer the United States stays the course, the worse the actual outcome becomes.

Let there be as orderly a transition as possible, accompanied by as much aid, foreign assistance and general sweetness and light as can be mustered, but the endpoint, complete withdrawal, should be announced in advance, so that everyone in Iraq -- from the beheaders and other murderers, to legitimate resisters, to any true democrats who may be on the scene -- can know that the responsibility for their country`s future is shifting to their shoulders. The outcome, though not in all honesty likely to be pretty, will at any rate be the best one possible. If the people of Iraq slip back into dictatorship, it will be their dictatorship. If they choose civil war, it will be their civil war. And if by some happy miracle they choose democracy, it will be their democracy -- the only kind worth having.

Kerry`s speech was the beginning "at long last" (his words) of a serious debate in the campaign over the war. The speech was heralded by his charge, a few days before, that George W. Bush lives in a "fantasy world of spin" -- the first telling, or even widely audible, phrase that Kerry has used in his entire campaign for President. Bush, indeed, has an audacious personal quality that has somehow served him well so far: full frontal repudiation of facts known to all. Faced with the absence of WMDs in Iraq he once simply said, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." Faced with a Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.," he and his spokespersons called it "historical." In his universe, faithfulness to delusion is "consistency." It reached its apogee at the GOP convention, where the President presented a picture of the war in Iraq from which all current facts-the street fighting, the bombing, the kidnappings, the torture, the departing allies-had been removed.

"Staying the course" meant staying in the imaginary world. At the convention, the President, if we are to judge by his sudden dramatic rise in the polls, apparently drew a majority of the country into that world with him. Yet almost immediately thereafter, he sank again in many polls. As of this writing, the polls are in anarchy, showing anything from a double-digit Bush lead to a dead heat. The polling may reflect the confusion of a public groping to deal with its immersion in the imaginary world. Like a movie audience emerging from a feel-good blockbuster onto the icy streets, the public probably cannot help noticing that what is before its eyes is quite different from what was on the screen. The bright and shining lies are always more appealing, at least for a while, than the plain truth. Could the resulting double-vision be the reason for a certain flip-flopping, so to speak, of the public itself?

In his speech, Kerry embraced one of the pillars of common sense, finally declaring that the war was a mistake, saying of the President, "Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no." He did not proceed, however, to the necessary corollary, that withdrawal is necessary, though he hinted at it. Each of his concrete proposals -- to find allies, train Iraqi police, speed up reconstruction, hold elections -- is fine, but none guarantee the success in creating a "viable" Iraq that he still seems to promise. He has put one foot in the real world, but left the other in the imaginary world, leaving himself open, still, to the flip-flopping charge that Bush immediately leveled against him again. Only one-hundred-percent fantasy will do for the President. But Kerry has at least begun the journey -- one as hard as the journey from his service in Vietnam to his protest against it -- toward the real. Give him credit for that.

Jonathan Schell is the Harold Willens Peace Fellow at the Nation Institute and the author of The Unconquerable World (Metropolitan Books) as well as A Hole in the World, a collection of his "Letters from Ground Zero" column for the Nation magazine.

Copyright C2004 Jonathan Schell

This article will appear in the October 11 issue of The Nation magazine.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
posted September 22, 2004 at 9:15 pm

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

FPIF Policy Report
September 2004
Who Are the Progressives in Iraq? The Left, the Right, and the Islamists
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0409progiraq.html

By Frank Smyth
Frank Smyth is a freelance journalist who has “embedded” with leftist guerrillas in El Salvador, Iraq, and Rwanda. He covered the 1991 uprisings against Saddam Hussein’s regime, and was later captured and held for two weeks inside Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. He wrote this policy report for Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). His clips are posted at www.franksmyth.com.


One event in Baghdad went unreported this month, not only by the mainstream media but also by the “alternative” press, even though it implies that U.S. control over Iraq’s political future may already be waning. In August, the White House supported the establishment of an Iraqi National Council comprising 100 Iraqis from various tribal, ethnic, and religious groups in an effort to influence the composition of an electoral oversight body. Yet this month, two large political parties, each of which has long been viewed with suspicion by Washington, came out ahead in the voting.

Many criticize the legitimacy of the process by which the Bush administration is hoping to steer Iraq toward national elections next January. The indirect elections took place under war conditions, and the Associated Press reported that mortars exploded near the convention site in Baghdad where delegates gathered. Iraqi delegates also expanded the number of vice-chairs in the national council from two to four. Had they not done so, the results might have been even more troubling for the White House.

In the September balloting, the delegate from the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Jawad al-Maliki, came in first with 56 votes. This is a Shiite group that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld lambasted as a tool of Iran during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Another Iraqi even less attractive to Washington, the Secretary General of the Iraqi Communist Party (www.iraqcp.org), Hamid Majid Moussa, came in second with 55 votes. Meanwhile, Rasim al-Awadi, the delegate from the Iraqi National Accord--the group once backed by the CIA and whose leader, Iyad Allawi, who was supported by the Bush administration to become the Iraqi prime minister--came in third with 53 votes. Nasir A`if al-Ani--the delegate from the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group, sympathetic to the Ba’athist-based, anti-American resistance operating both west and north of Baghdad--came in fourth with 48 votes.

By any count, getting only one ally elected out of four seats on this potentially all-important electoral oversight body does not bode well for the Bush administration. After the Iraqi National Council was formed, but before it voted, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, while at President Bush’s family ranch in Crawford, Texas, declared: “The selection of the council is a sign that the Iraqi people will not allow terrorist elements to stand in the way of their democratic future.”

But what if elections in Iraq early next year lead to a government unlike anything ever expected by the Bush administration? The respected Arabist from the University of Michigan, Juan Cole, was among the first to report the Iraqi National Council election results on his blog, www.juancole.com. “So,” he quipped, “this list is further evidence that the U.S. invaded Iraq to install in power a coalition of Communists, Islamists and ex-Ba’athist nationalists. If you had said such a thing 3 years ago you would have been laughed at.”


My Enemy’s Friends

Many American leftists seem to know little about their Iraqi counterparts, since understanding the role of the Iraqi left requires a nuanced approach. Unfortunately the knee-jerk, anti-imperialist analysis of groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R. has wormed its way into several progressive outlets. Dispatches and columns in The Nation as well as reports and commentary on the independently syndicated radio program “Democracy Now” have all but ignored the role of Iraqi progressives while highlighting, if not championing, the various factions of the Iraqi-based resistance against the U.S.-led occupation without bothering to ask who these groups are and what they represent for Iraqis.

By now several things about the Iraq War seem clear. The U.S.-led invasion was the most dangerous and reckless step taken by the United States since the Vietnam War, and America is already paying dearly and is sure to pay an even steeper price in the future for this imprudent action. More than 1,000 American soldiers have died in little more than a year in a campaign that has undermined U.S. security more profoundly than even candidate John Kerry has managed to articulate. Never has the United States (according to international public opinion polls) been so resented, if not loathed, by so many people around the world. And this is exactly the kind of environment in which al-Qaida terrorists--who do represent a real and ongoing threat to the United States and others--thrive.

U.S. activists who demonstrated against the Iraq War made an invaluable contribution by letting the rest of the world know that millions of Americans opposed the U.S.-led invasion. But the enemy of one’s enemy is not necessarily one’s friend. To think otherwise is to embrace an Orwellian logic that makes anti-war Americans appear not only uninformed but also as cynical as the pro-war protagonists whom they oppose. The irony of the Iraq War is that the Bush administration made a unilateral decision to invade a nation in order to overthrow a leader who ranked among the most despised despots in the world but, in so doing, managed to turn countless people in many nations against the United States.


Who Hated Saddam?

Saddam Hussein’s detractors have always included none other than Osama bin Laden, who long derided the Iraqi leader as either an “infidel” or a “false Muslim” nearly every time he has ever mentioned his name in any interview or recorded statement. The most radical of Muslims, in fact, know all too well that no modern Arab government tortured and murdered as many Muslims as did Saddam’s Ba’athist regime. No Middle Eastern leader, either, has tortured and murdered as many communists as Saddam did during the decades of his regime.

The Arab Nationalist Renaissance Ba’athist Party has been both anti-communist and anti-Islamic and unabashedly championed ethnic nationalism. In Iraq, the Ba’ath Party under Saddam Hussein instituted a minority-based government. Ethnic Arabs of the mainstream Sunni Muslim faith have long dominated the Ba’ath Party, even though Sunni Arabs today constitute at most 17% of the Iraqi population, just a bit above the percentage of whites in South Africa.

Ethnic Arabs of the Shiite Muslim sect, meanwhile, are nearly as numerous in Iraq as blacks are in South Africa. Anyone interested in empowering the poor should also know that Iraq’s Shiite Muslims have long been the most indigent of Iraqis and suffered the most during the U.S.-backed UN sanctions. Shiite males were often little more than cannon fodder for Saddam’s various military adventures. Like the Shiites, Iraq’s Kurds, about 20% of the population, never enjoyed more than token representation under Saddam.

Resistance to Saddam’s rule took many forms from 1979 to 2003, with anti-Saddam groups organized largely along Shiite Islamic, Kurdish nationalist, or Communist Party lines. Each of these groups lost tens of thousands of adherents to brutal counterinsurgency sweeps conducted by the Ba’athist government. Some American leftists apologized for Saddam’s government, saying it was no worse than many others in the world. But Saddam Hussein’s behavior deserves a category for itself, employing vicious repression and often including the torture and rape of family members of suspected dissidents. Few rulers anywhere in the world were so brutal, with one exception of the CIA-backed government in Guatemala during the l980s. (Both that government and Saddam’s, it is worth noting, were clandestinely aided by the United States during the Reagan administration.)

In more recent years, U.S. leftists were not the only ones who ignored the various Iraqi groups that had long resisted Saddam’s tyranny. The U.S. right, led most recently by the neoconservatives of the Bush administration, also ignored these resistance groups when they sought Iraqi allies during the buildup to the 2003 U.S. invasion. Instead of reaching out to broad-based, anti-Saddam groups like either the Shiite Muslim opposition or the secular leftist resistance, both of which still had either armed or clandestine cadres inside Iraq as late as 2003, the Bush administration allied itself instead with a group of ex-monarchists led by the now-discredited Ahmed Chalabi. A solid member of the old ruling class, Chalabi’s father was the wealthiest man in Baghdad in 1958, when Iraq’s short-lived, British-imposed monarchy was overthrown. The Ba’athists, eventually led by Saddam, came out on top in the ensuing power struggle, but both the Shiite majority and Iraq’s second-largest population group, the Kurds, remained excluded from wealth as well as power.


The Resistance Versus the Revolutionaries

There are several factions fighting U.S.-led forces inside Iraq today, and the heavy-handedness of the U.S. occupation has spurred many individual Iraqi nationalists to join them. American abuses have included breaking into homes, with male troops often manhandling women and terrifying children, firing into populated areas, causing many civilian casualties, and humiliating--as well as torturing--Iraqis inside Abu Ghraib prison.

Yet, all of the organized groups among the Iraqi resistance are reactionary forces of one kind or another. The resistance around and between the cities of Falluja, Tikrit, and Baghdad in the so-called “Sunni triangle” is led by ex-Ba’athists who aspire to return the old minority-based dictatorship to power. As Juan Cole points out, Nasir A`if al-Ani, the Sunni delegate to the Iraqi National Council from the Iraqi Islamic Party, does not even recognize the Shi’a people as a majority in Iraq. (Not even the most recalcitrant Afrikaners in apartheid South Africa pretended that blacks were a minority.)

Others like The Nation’s Naomi Klein, meanwhile, seem to have naively fallen for the al-Mahdi militia that recently fought U.S. Marines in Najaf. The al-Mahdi militia is a loosely organized Shiite opposition group led by Muqtada al-Sadr. He is a young man who inherited his role after his father and two brothers were murdered by Saddam. Lacking either the maturity or training of a senior cleric, al-Sadr has tried to lure supporters from more-respected Shiite clerics by promoting militant enforcement of the most fundamental tenets of Shiite Islam, including the explicit repression of gays and women.

The third sizable element of resistance inside Iraq is composed of foreign Islamist members of al-Qaida, who, like both the Saudi royal family and Osama bin Laden, practice an even more extreme version of Islam, Wahaabism. This group’s recent victims may include two kidnapped Italian women who work for the Italian group A Bridge to Baghdad, which, like U.S. anti-war groups working in Iraq, is explicitly opposed to the U.S. occupation. The American anti-war group, Iraq Occupation Watch, seems to believe that members of the Iraqi resistance may be holding them, pointing out on its website that the abductors should recognize that the Italian women are anti-war activists. On the other hand, Democracy Now`s Jeremy Scahill and The Nation`s Naomi Klein have written in The Guardian that a Western intelligence-backed group may be behind the abductions, suggesting that the CIA or others seized the two women to try to discredit the Iraqi opposition.

The Iraqis favored by the Bush administration may be secular, but they are hardly more admirable people. Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is an ex-Ba’athist who left the Ba’ath Party in the mid-1970s. Paul McGeough of the Sydney Morning Herald, reported that Allawi personally executed (with a handgun) six Iraqis in a Baghdad police station right before he became prime minister, though no proof of this crime has yet been forthcoming. Prime Minister Allawi’s democracy credentials are also not impressive. He has already banned the Qatar-based satellite TV network, al-Jazeera, and has imposed certain forms of martial law.

Neither the resistance groups cheered on by many on the American left nor the governing parties championed by the American right seem to reflect the views and aspirations of most Iraqi people, who seem to be hoping for the rise of groups independent of both Saddam’s reign and the increasingly dictatorial Allawi government. Possibilities include moderate Shiite groups and secular leftist ones, through whose leadership most Iraqis hope to find a way to empower themselves for the first time in their history.

Unfortunately, mainstream Iraqis seem to have been all but forgotten by both the American left and right. Iraqis must be valued for who they are, not as pawns in some partisan political agenda. Such chauvinism might be expected of “America-first” right-wingers, but such a position is hardly defensible for any conscientious progressive. It’s no wonder instead of seeing Iraq’s highly complex and, indeed, contradictory political reality, so many American leftists have chosen instead to cling to the comfort that comes from simple sloganeering.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

http://www.salon.com


Hell
Salon`s war correspondent on the Iraq inferno.

Editor`s note: Salon correspondent Phillip Robertson has spent five months covering the war in Iraq. As the presidential campaign finally focuses on the war, Robertson offers this assessment of the grim situation there.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Phillip Robertson

Sept. 23, 2004 | BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Three years after the attacks on the World Trade Center, attacks in which they played no part, the people of Iraq have been liberated from one tyranny only to be remanded to another: continuous urban warfare, religious extremism and a contagion of fear. The celebrated hand of the free market in Iraq has brought not only cellphones and satellite TV, it has also brought down prices for automatic weapons, making them affordable to the average Iraqi. The last time I checked, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher cost about $250.

In his address to the United Nations on Tuesday, President Bush told a subdued General Assembly, "Today, the Iraqi and Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom. The governments that are rising will pose no threat to others. Instead of harboring terrorists, they`re fighting terrorist groups. And this progress is good for the long-term security of us all." The words of the president ring hollow.

It is words to this effect that Iraq interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi will likely echo during his visit to the White House Thursday.

Reconstruction, the most important step on the path to a sovereign and stable Iraq, has all but stalled because of targeted acts of violence that reach all the way south to Basra and north to Mosul. Successful countermoves by the Sunni insurgents have prevented the United States and new Iraqi government from gaining any real political support. In fact, billions of dollars originally allocated for reconstruction are now headed for security companies, which are quickly becoming private militias. Unfortunately for optimistic planners in the Bush administration, the coalition is up against not one single group but a constellation of allied militias. It`s as if the United States had gone to war against the tribal system itself. There are so many new fighter cells that they are at a loss to distinguish themselves, and so use kidnapping and videotapes as branding strategies. In this market, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi`s Tawhid wa al Jihad, with its monstrous beheading trademark, is the undisputed brand king. Some of the groups are crazier than others. It is a free market of demons.

In the past year, al-Qaida operatives have found in Iraq a fertile recruiting ground, the best possible training camp for jihad against the West, a destination any angry young man can reach if he has the will and pocket money. Iraq`s borders, which stretch across hundreds of miles of empty desert, are perfect for smugglers and men seeking martyrdom. No one really knows how many people are coming into Iraq to fight the U.S. But the fighters who do make it across are changing the character of the resistance, internationalizing it, injecting religious extremism into the politics of a once-secular Iraq. Young men coming in from other countries don`t fight for Iraq, they fight for Islam.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE]
One of the unutterable truths for the administration is that the U.S. occupation is breeding and fueling insurgent groups. Iraqi government officials rightly fear for their lives, but Iraqi forces, which are supposed to be fighting alongside U.S. troops in the cause of a free and democratic Iraq, are often undisciplined, dangerous and in some places infiltrated by insurgent groups. The Mahdi Army in Sadr City has a number of police officers in its ranks, and in a little remarked upon event that took place during one of the large demonstrations in Baghdad at the time of the siege, the Iraqi police helped Sadr officials address a crowd of Muqtada al-Sadr supporters outside the neutral Green Zone.

On Aug. 13, with U.S. troops looking on, a Mahdi Army sheik urged the followers of Muqtada al-Sadr to go to Najaf to support the men occupying the shrine. He used a public address system in the back of a police pickup to get his message across. The fighters were yelling and grabbing at journalists, proud that the police were on their side, and they wanted us to take note. Above us, in their watchtowers, Iraqi police hung pictures of Muqtada al-Sadr and waved to the crowd. The organizers of the rally were overjoyed.

Fringe groups, extreme groups, associations with the most vocal opposition to the U.S. occupation, steadily acquire more legitimacy in Iraq because they tend to express the true feelings of many Iraqis. Not everyone takes part in the fighting, but many people understand why the groups choose to fight. Jobs in the Iraqi National Guard and the Iraqi police tend to attract poor men who desperately need the money, while the insurgents attract believers, men who feel wronged and humiliated by the U.S. occupation, and who will work for nothing. They are volunteers. Which emotion is stronger?

Iraq is a place where there is no civil debate and interest groups mediate their conflicts with weapons. The U.S. has the most powerful armed presence, its own military, but as an interest group, it represents the smallest number of Iraqis, possibly only those it directly supports. Political legitimacy, we have long known, comes directly from the people; it is not something that can be dictated by a foreign power, no matter how noble its stated intentions. The Allawi government, the result of American occupation, is what many Iraqis scornfully call a U.S. puppet government. In the months following the "transfer of sovereignty," I never heard a single Iraqi offer up praise for it. Not one.

The Sunni insurgents, a creepy hodgepodge of extremist imams, tribal sheiks, former Iraqi government officials and al-Qaida types, have not only scuttled the plans to rebuild the country, they have also cornered the political debate. Relying on abundant examples of victimization and prejudice against Iraqis and Muslims, the fighters present themselves as defenders of the faith. Kidnapping, execution and death threats have become acceptable practices in the eyes of some ordinary Iraqis who may have been horrified by it only a few months before.

When a well-educated Sunni shop owner named Abu Mustapha heard about the kidnapping of French journalists Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot, he wanted to express his sympathy. It sounded like this: "Phillip, it is very bad that they were kidnapped. You should be careful." I pointed out that the people who were abducting noncombatants and threatening to kill them were behaving like animals. The hostage-takers were demanding that the French government repeal a law prohibiting religious symbols from being worn in schools. Abu Mustapha agreed with the insurgents. "You know, the French should change their law," he said. "It is a bad law. Muslim girls should be able to wear the hejab in school."

Contrary to the administration`s hopeful statements, we are not seeing the establishment of a stable Iraq, the mopping up of unreformed Baath Party apparatchiks and dead-enders. We are seeing the beginning of a larger conflict that is busily giving birth to monsters.

Since April, the coalition has lost ground in central and western Iraq and will be forced in the coming months to gain it back at great cost. Fallujah and Ramadi, two sizable Iraqi cities, are no longer under Iraqi government control. Sadr City, with several million people, remains a stronghold for the Mahdi Army and the site of a continuing series of battles. Najaf and Karbala, cities the military has taken back from the Mahdi Army, were never strongholds of the Shia resistance. In Najaf, citizens paid a high price for emancipation. They experienced the destruction of their city and must now set about rebuilding it, a process that will take years. It is hard to imagine that the U.S. is loved in Najaf. While the siege may have been a military victory, it was a political defeat. I left Najaf just as men were beginning to dig out bodies.

But Najaf did not serve as the headstone for the Mahdi Army; at best, the military defeat set them back a few months, driving them deeper underground. The first cavalry division and the Marines successfully routed the Muqtada fighters, pushing them to other cities, scattering them but not destroying them. In my second to last day in Najaf, at the end of the siege, journalists in the old city watched militiamen load wooden carts full of weapons and take them to new hiding places. When we asked where they were going, one fighter said to a comrade in an alley just off Rasul Street, "Don`t talk to these people, some of them are spies." That was a perfectly normal response and we didn`t take it personally. But it was clear that they weren`t taking their anti-aircraft weapons and rockets to U.S. collection points for cash payouts. The skittish Mahdi Army fighters were busy smuggling their weapons out of town to other cities and a number of them were almost certainly headed for Baghdad. We watched them trundle the carts over the streets, trying to keep the weapons from spilling out onto the cobblestones.

Here is something everyone in Iraq knows: The U.S. is now fighting a holding action against a growing uprising, and the more it fights the worse it gets. At the other end of the spectrum, if the U.S. military were to suddenly withdraw, the largest armed factions in Iraq would immediately begin to compete for the capital in a bloody civil war. Recently, a National Intelligence Estimate, a document prepared for President Bush by senior intelligence officials, warned of exactly that outcome. It is the kind of analysis that Secretary of State Colin Powell might write off as defeatist if it had come from the press.

How much control does the U.S. military have over the country? Not as much as it would like. Large sections of the capital are in the hands of insurgents, and organized attacks on convoys, U.S. interests and Iraqi targets are on the rise. The administration can say things are getting better, that a newly democratic Iraq is facing its enemies, but last week Baghdadis woke up at 5 in the morning to the sound of a large volley of rockets slamming into the Green Zone. The explosions sounded like they were coming from more than one direction, the sign of a carefully coordinated attack.

This summer, it wasn`t unusual to wake up to the sound of roadside bombs going off near Humvees on their early morning U.S. patrols. Month by month, attacks became more severe, bombs more powerful. In the sky above the Duleimi hotel, medevac helicopters would shudder through the air on their way to combat support hospitals. When something truly ugly was going on, we could hear the rush of the medevac Black Hawks in a steady progression.

What the war`s champions prefer to ignore is that in large parts of Iraq, broad support exists for anyone willing to pick up a gun and fight the United States. Fighters become local stars and when they die, their friends hold their photographs as treasured objects, pass them around at parties, and later try to emulate their fallen buddies. Paradise awaits, full of virgins who have bodies made of light. Many young Iraqi men believe this. A young fighter guarding the bottom of Rasul Street in Najaf said, just before the collapse of the truce on Aug. 4, "Paradise is a place without corruption. It`s not like this place, it smells sweet." Thousands of Iraqis, not all of them poor and unemployed, have checked into the resistance, not only because it`s honorable but because it`s fun. Spreading through family and neighborhoods, the insurgency can be anywhere, anytime.

A young Apache helicopter gunner who has fought in many of Iraq`s major battles wrote me a few days ago and said: "I have a feeling that with every one member of the resistance that we kill, we give birth to ten more." At a distance of hundreds of feet in the air, a perceptive man can say this. Here is what the situation looks like from the ground.

Iraq seems modern only at first glance. The highways, factories and cities are familiar enough but they hide a deep tribal sensibility. Insults to family honor in Iraq are usually repaid in blood or money depending on the severity, and this system of revenge and honor fuels the war instead of slowing it down. The United States military, unable to relate to a tribal society, finds itself the player in a nationwide blood feud. To understand the intensity of these feelings of honor and kinship, read "Othello" or watch "The Godfather." This is how many tribal Iraqis perceive the world. It is not necessarily a lack of sophistication but a mark of being outside the West. Tribal culture in Iraq goes back thousands of years. When an Iraqi man loses a family member to an American missile, he must take another American life to even the score. He may not subscribe to the notion that some Americans are noncombatants, viewing them instead as the members of a supertribe that has come to invade his land.

The war, illegal and founded on a vast lie, has produced two tragedies of equal magnitude: an embryonic civil war in the world`s oldest country, and a triumph for those in the Bush administration who, without a trace of shame, act as if the truth does not matter. Lying until the lie became true, the administration pursued a course of action that guaranteed large sections of Iraq would become havens for jihadis and radical Islamists. That is the logic promoted by people who take for themselves divine infallibility -- a righteousness that blinds and destroys. Like credulous Weimar Germans who were so delighted by rigged wrestling matches, millions of Americans have accepted Bush`s assertions that the war in Iraq has made the United States and the rest of the world a safer place to live. Of course, this is false.

But it is a useful fiction because it is a happy one. All we need to know, according to the administration, is that America is a good country, full of good people and therefore cannot make bloody mistakes when it comes to its own security. The bitter consequence of succumbing to such happy talk is that the government of the most powerful nation in the world now operates unchecked and unmoored from reality; leaving us teetering on the brink of another presidential term where abuse of authority has been recast as virtue.

The logic the administration uses to promote its actions -- preemptive war, indefinite detention, torture of prisoners, the abandonment of the Geneva Convention abroad and the Bill of Rights at home -- is simple, faith-based and therefore empty of reason. The worsening war is the creation of the Bush administration, which is simultaneously holding Americans and Iraqis hostage to a bloody conflict that cannot be won, only stalemated.

Over the last three years, practicing a philosophy of deliberate deception, fear-mongering and abuse of authority, the Bush administration has done more to undermine the republic of Lincoln and Jefferson than the cells of al-Qaida. It has willfully ignored our fundamental laws and squandered the nation`s wealth in bloody, open-ended pursuits. Corporations like Halliburton, with close ties to government officials, are profiting greatly from the war while thousands of American soldiers undertake the dangerous work of patrolling the streets of Iraqi cities. We have arrived at a moment of national crisis.

At home, the United States, under the Bush administration, is rapidly drifting toward a security state whose principal currency is fear. Abroad, it has used fear to justify the invasion of Iraq -- fear of weapons of mass destruction, of terrorist attacks, of Iraq itself. The administration, under false premises, invaded a country that it barely understood. We entered a country in shambles, a population divided against itself. The U.S. invasion was a catalyst of violence and religious hatred, and the continuing presence of American troops has only made matters worse. Iraq today bears no resemblance to the president`s vision of a fledgling democracy. On its way to national elections in January, Iraq has already slipped into chaos.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Beheaded hostages, slaughtered children, and the misguided `war on global terror`
When there are violent attacks, we need to understand why they are happening. If we don`t, we can`t prevent them
Johann Hari

The Independent

23 September 2004

As Iraqi jihadists threaten to behead the British captive Kenneth Bigley, the word `terrorist` is everywhere. If I could ban any word in the English language, it would be this. Here`s one example of its lop-sided use. A fortnight ago, Chechen jihadists murdered more than 300 children in Beslan. They are "terrorists". Since 1991, Russian troops have murdered more than 40,000 Chechen. They are not "terrorists"; they are "our allies".

The term "terrorism" simply means "violence we don`t support". In the adult world, each individual act of violence needs to be discussed on its own merits and in its own context. Some of the people who howl "terrorist" most loudly admit that they use the term as an attempt to shut down debate. Richard Perle, the neoconservative guru, says we need to "decontextualise terror". "Any attempt to discuss the roots of terrorism is an attempt to justify it," he says. "It simply needs to be fought and destroyed."

It`s necessary to look at some recent history to understand how foolish this is. When the Soviet Union fell, the Chechen people sought independence from Russia, the country that had battered them for over a century. They have a separate language and culture; it was a perfectly reasonable demand - but the exit door was quickly bolted shut. Chechnya is an important source of access to the region`s oil and gas reserves. No Russian government was going to let its people go.

So the Chechens launched a campaign of limited violence. In response, Russia levelled Chechnya. A quarter of the population has "disappeared" in the attacks. In 1996, the Russian government finally grew tired of bombing rubble and being bombed in return. They granted Chechnya de facto sovereignty. The violence stopped. For three years, peace prevailed.

But when two bombs exploded in a pair of Moscow apartment blocks in 1999 - killing 200 innocent people - Vladimir Putin was quick to claim this as proof that no compromise will appease the Chechens. There`s a snag: several respected journalists, including my colleague Patrick Cockburn, discovered that an identical third bomb was planted in a nearby apartment block. The perpetrators were captured - and then released by police when they discovered that they were Russian secret service agents.

There is considerable evidence that Putin relaunched the Chechen war - and destroyed the region`s fragile peace - for his own political and strategic ends. Who are the "terrorists" in this scenario? How does that label help us to understand this conflict?

Pearle would say that even to offer this context is to apologise for it. Imagine saying this about any other historical event. There is a consensus among historians that the injustices contained in the Versailles Treaty contributed to the rise of Nazism. Are all these historians pro-Nazi?

The term "terrorism" - as used by the press and politicians today - invites us all to participate in a strange, wilful ignorance of cause and effect. How can this ever be a serious response to our problems?

When there are violent attacks, we need to understand why they are happening. If we do not, we are left flailing about in a historical void - and powerless to prevent further attacks. If Putin really wanted to stop the attacks on Russian civilians, he would withdraw his murderous troops from the region and grant it independence. He does not do it because he clearly values oil and gas reserves - and a reputation for "toughness" - rather more than human life.

It is nonsense to describe the battle we have been engaged in since 11 September 2001 as a "War on Terror". This misnomer has allowed any tin-pot dictatorship to target its own unhelpful minorities as "terrorists".

The battle we really are engaged in - and we are too squeamish to describe - is against a particular brand of Wahabi Islamic fundamentalism. Why doesn`t Tony Blair call it by its proper name, rather than talking airily about "defeating global terrorism forever" - a meaningless and absurd sentence?

Wherever jihadism has been allowed to seize power - as in Afghanistan - jihadists have committed human rights abuses on a par with the worst of communism and fascism. (The victims have mostly been innocent Muslims.) They believe in exterminating minority groups like homosexuals, Jews and even other Muslim sects. They believe that death is in many circumstances preferable to life - and they are prepared to take plenty of people with them who don`t agree.

It is precisely because this philosophy is so dangerous that we cannot afford a no-context-please approach. We need to understand the factors that makes jihadism so appealing to so many young men or we will never be able to prevent it. It is not inherent to the Islamic faith. There are few jihadists in stable, prosperous Muslim countries like Turkey, or among the Muslim populations of Europe and America. No; jihadism is a virus that spreads in conditions of poverty, humiliation and butchery.

Where there are legitimate grievances being exploited by jihadists, they must be dealt with urgently. There needs to be an independent Chechnya, a free Kashmir, a Palestinian state and an end to the revolting House of Saud.

Of course granting all of these will not send every last jihadist back to his cave; but it will whittle down their support and make it harder for them to recruit a new generation of supporters.

Yet our governments have scarcely begun the long process of reorienting our foreign policy so it undermines these causes of jihadism. They are still supporting Putin`s butchery in Chechnya. They are still supporting and arming Ariel Sharon as he consolidates settlements on the West Bank. In Central Asia they are creating a new Middle East, filled with corrupt pro-Western tyrants and chafing populations who turn to Islamofascism.

If we are all settling down into a long, dangerous fight against jihadism then we need to start extinguishing these fires of rage. It is only once these proper grievances have been dealt with - once it is clear that there is no justice on the jihadist side - that our leaders can build a consensus to fight the remaining shards of Islamic fundamentalism.

There should be no illusions. Most jihadists will carry on fighting long after we have mopped up concerns Western liberals can share. Many of their grievances simply could not be accommodated without surrendering our own values.

Look at the jihadists earlier this month who took French civilians hostage in Iraq. They were trying to force the elected French government to lift its ban on Muslim veils in state schools. Their grievance is against both secularism and democracy. Does anybody think we should appease that?

Or look at the jihadists who have taken Kenneth Bigley hostage in Iraq this week. They are demanding the release of Saddam Hussein`s chemical weapons expert, amongst others. How can this grievance - a desire for the return of Saddam Hussein`s regime - be dealt with, other than with bullets? Call them Saddam-supporters; call them monsters. But please - don`t reinforce one of the stupidities of our age and call them "terrorists".

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Die Wahlschau mit Allawi ist reiner Zynismus.

Parallel Worlds
In Washington, the Iraqi PM is applauded by Congress and fêted by George Bush. In Liverpool, Ken Bigley`s mother is rushed to hospital after pleading for son`s life
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

24 September 2004

Large areas of the country are in rebel hands, American forces are attacked every day and Ken Bigley is facing imminent execution, but for George Bush and Iyad Allawi yesterday these were but minor obstacles on Iraq`s certain path to freedom and democracy.

For four hours, the Iraqi interim Prime Minister was front and centre of the US President`s re-election campaign. He was given the great ceremonial stages of Capitol Hill and the White House to proclaim Mr Bush`s constant simple message to voters: whatever the appearance on the ground, Iraq is making steady progress and withdrawal now would have disastrous consequences.

Perfectly on cue, the President vowed that the US would not, and could not, leave Iraq until the job was done. Nor could there be any negotiating with the militants who had abducted Mr Bigley.

The forceful message from Washington contrasted with the increasingly desperate pleas for mercy yesterday from Mr Bigley`s family in Liverpool. In a televised message to his captors, Mr Bigley`s mother, Elizabeth, 86, begged for her son to be sent home alive. Shortly after, the anxiety of waiting for news of her son appeared to take its toll. She collapsed and was taken to hospital where her condition was described as stable.

Earlier in the day, Tony Blair had telephoned the family for the second time this week. Supported by her sons Philip, 49, and Stan, 67, she said: "Would you please help my son? He is only a working man who wants to support his family. Please show mercy."

The 62-year-old engineer`s Thai wife, Sombat, also pleaded for his release. "We have been married for seven years and I love him very much ... I desperately want to be reunited with my husband," she said. "I plead for your mercy now, and beg that you release Ken so that I may be with him again."

Mr Bush said he was "disgusted" by the beheading this week of the two Americans who were kidnapped with Mr Bigley, but, he stressed, "I`m not going to yield." Iraq was part of the war on terror, he said, and if America failed there its own security would be imperilled. Undefeated, the insurgents could "plot and plan attacks elsewhere". This was also Mr Allawi`s line; indeed almost his every utterance could have been delivered by the President. Yesterday showed how closely the two men`s fortunes are bound together. Mr Allawi`s success is vital to Mr Bush`s re-election campaign, but the Iraqi must rely on the US military for his very survival.

Even in style the two men resembled each other. Mr Bush was his habitual self, truculent, unyielding and unshakeable in the rightness of his cause and his judgement. The stocky Mr Allawi, with his crisp, slightly guttural English, projected an almost equal self-confidence.

The elections scheduled for January would go ahead as planned, he declared. "They won`t be perfect," he conceded, "but they will take place and they will be free and fair." Of Iraq`s 18 provinces "14 or 15" were utterly safe, he said, glossing over the major towns in insurgent hands.

Mr Allawi`s appearance came at a pivotal moment, when Iraq has turned into the campaign`s all-consuming issue, with Mr Bush under withering daily attack from his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, for his alleged mishandling of the crisis.

Loudly applauded by Republicans, Mr Allawi delivered what he called "three messages", which are central to Mr Bush`s own re-election bid: the Prime Minister and the interim government in Baghdad are succeeding, America is to be thanked for its assistance in Iraq and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

He too reiterated that no deals could be made with those holding Mr Bigley: "When governments negotiate with terrorists, everyone in the free world suffers." Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (believed to be the leader of the group holding the Briton) was not alone. "There are others like him", watching for the first sign of weakness, Mr Allawi said. Only once did a crack appear in the wall of unity. Under questioning, Mr Bush implied that he would send more troops to Iraq, as apparently requested by General John Abizaid, head of US Central Command, which runs the Iraq campaign. Mr Allawi indicated he opposed such reinforcements, saying the job should be done by the Iraqi forces now being trained.

Campaigning in Ohio, Mr Kerry accused Mr Bush of lying about the true state of Iraq. "America needs leadership that tells the truth," he said. It was "a disgrace" that the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, had not come clean about what was happening ­ and a disgrace that the President did not hold anyone responsible.

The President had failed to provide security for Iraq, Mr Kerry said, citing the recent CIA assessment that the country could be on the brink of civil war.

The assumption here is that as soon as the US elections are out of the way, a second Bush administration would launch a major offensive against insurgent strongholds in Iraq to clear the path for elections there.


24 September 2004 08:43


©2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Philip Stephens: Power and legitimacy
By Philip Stephens

Financial Times

Published: September 24 2004

Watching the forced handshake between George W. Bush and Kofi Annan at the United Nations General Assembly this week reminded me just how bad things have become. There, under the television arc-lights, power and legitimacy stood side by side; and it was painfully obvious they had never been further apart.

Mr Annan, the best secretary-general the UN has had for a long time, voiced his despair at the way Hobbesian anarchy was elbowing aside the rule of law as the organising principle of international relations. The bloody chaos in Iraq, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and ethnic cleansing in Darfur - all are rooted in their own grim histories. Taken together, though, they speak to what Mr Annan sees as a much bigger fracturing of the global system.

The warnings in his speech to the General Assembly were directed above all at the US - specifically to the present administration`s selective and arbitrary application of international law. Yet Mr Bush`s presence was a reminder that Mr Annan is a servant rather than master of his institution. The secretary-general is po werless without the backing of the Security Council and the Security Council depends on the willing engagement of the sole superpower.

Mr Bush is not interested. He talks about leadership, not legitimacy, unaware or unconcerned about the umbilical cord between them. He must have hated every minute of his brief sojourn in New York. After all, only the other day Richard Cheney, the vice-president, was drawing his loudest applause at the Republican convention by parading Washington`s disdain for the UN and all its works - and that was before Mr Annan declared the invasion of Iraq to have been âillegalâ.

By any objective measure America stands on the brink of strategic failure in Iraq. But the US president is fighting an election. So, at every turn, loud determination defies grim reality. All that matters, Mr Bush tells us, is that America will prevail. Good will triumph over evil, the terrorists will be routed, and freedom will reign.

It must be said that such obstinate optimism has done him no harm on the campaign trail. The opinion polls say Mr Bush is still well ahead of John Kerry, the Democratic contender, as America`s preferred choice as commander-in-chief. The voters seem to feel safer with the certain voice of the person who marched them into the swamp than with the uncomfortable truth that there is no easy way out.

Yet the irony is that the slide towards civil war in Iraq offers the most convincing rebuttal of Mr Bush`s reckless assertion that American power has no need of the legitimacy that flows from an international system grounded in the rule of law.

The rising death toll of innocent civilians, the pitiless barbarism of the hostage-takers led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the impotence of an American military increasingly confined to its fortified bases bear daily witness to the gathering catastrophe in Iraq.

Anyone who doubts Mr Bush`s culpability would do well to read a paper by Larry Diamond in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs. Mr Diamond, a fellow at Stanford University`s Hoover Institution and a former adviser to the now defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, does not revisit all the arguments about whether the US should have gone to war to remove Saddam Hussein. Instead, he chronicles in sober, non-partisan prose the catalogue of grievous errors that ensured that a speedy military victory was thrown away to the chaos of the present insurgency.

Many of the mistakes are familiar: the hubristic incompetence of the Pentagon`s civilian leaders in their refusal to commit sufficient forces to guarantee a minimum level of security in postwar Iraq; the decision by the CPA to purge all Ba`athists from positions of responsibility; the disbanding of the army; the promotion of discredited Iraqi exiles as the country`s future leaders; and the failure to develop anything resembling a coherent political strategy to engage respected Iraqi leaders.

The binding thread in Mr Diamond`s narrative, though, is Washington`s consistent failure to under stand that its occupation lacked legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis. In his dispassionate description: âToo many Iraqis viewed the invasion not as an international effort but as an occupation by Western, Christian, essentially Anglo-American powers, and this evoked powerful memories of previous subjugation and of the nationalist struggles against Iraq`s former overlords.â Put another way, American military power was fatally undercut by a lack of legitimacy.

Circumstance has forced grudging recognition of this in the White House, though Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon is a man who must never be blamed for anything. In June, the UN was persuaded to give international blessing to Iyad Allawi`s interim government. Mr Bush himself points to the UN`s central role in the organising of elections planned for January. Whether those elections can actually take place in conditions that Iraqis judge to be fair is an altogether different question.

Mr Diamond has not given up all hope that a relativ ely free Iraqi state might emerge at some point from the present mess, not least because his time in Baghdad persuaded him most Iraqis share that hope. But he points also to the risks of civil war, renewed repression and the creation of another safe haven for terrorists.

As for the shifts in Mr Bush`s position, they have been largely tactical. The fundamental view of the White House remains that while the UN may occasionally be useful as an instrument of US hegemony, it is an unnecessary source of legitimacy. America does not need foreigners to tell it it is right.

The (American) architects of the postwar international system understood otherwise, recognising from the outset the symbiotic relationship between power and legitimacy. The UN, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a panoply of international treaties - all were designed to underscore US power. The institutions drew authority from Washington and, in turn, underpinned its leadership . The system was far from perfect, not least because of the paralysing effect of the cold war. But as we witness its collapse, we can see what we have lost; and that we are all less secure as a consequence.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 24, 2004
THE MILITARY
Panel Calls U.S. Troop Size Insufficient for Demands
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 - A Pentagon-appointed panel of outside experts has concluded in a new study that the American military does not have sufficient forces to sustain current and anticipated stability operations, like the festering conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and other missions that might arise.

Portions of the study, which has not been officially released, were read into the public record on Thursday by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a leader of Democrats who want to expand the size of the military. During testimony by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his top commanders, Senator Reed said he found the study "provocative and startling."

Mr. Rumsfeld said the report was an "excellent piece of work," and that he had ordered briefings on its findings for senior military and civilian officials.

But he cautioned after the hearing that the section read by Senator Reed was not a comprehensive synopsis, and that the authors of the study may not be fully aware of the variety of steps under way by the Pentagon broadly to lessen stress on the force, and actions taken specifically by the Army to increase the number of available combat forces without further expanding the military.

Senator Reed said the Defense Science Board study found "inadequate total numbers of U.S. troops" and "a lack of long-term endurance."

He quoted the report as saying that unless the United States scaled back its stabilization operations, it would have to reshape its forces to "trade combat capabilities for stabilization capabilities" or depend on contributions of troops from allied countries or the United Nations.

"If everything we recommend is implemented over the next five years but we continue our current foreign policy of military expeditions every two years, we will begin two more stabilization operations without sufficient preparation or resources," Mr. Reed said in describing the findings of the board, a high-level advisory group.

The study itself was managed by two defense industry executives: Craig Fields, a former chairman of the Defense Science Board and former head of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; and Philip A. Odeen, another former Defense Department official. "They conclude by saying: anything started wrong tends to continue wrong," Mr. Reed said during a four-hour hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Reed added that the study raises troubling questions in the event that the American presence in Iraq drags on and new emergencies arise. "Iran and North Korea are provocative," he said. "They very well might cause us to take military action; one hopes not. And then, as you often say, there`s also the surprises that we don`t even contemplate at this moment."

The issue of long-term deployments to Iraq, and whether the military should be further expanded, have become much-debated issues on the campaign trail this election year.

An article published Thursday by Inside the Pentagon, a military affairs newsletter, quoted the study as concluding that "current and projected force structure will not sustain our current and projected global stabilization commitments."

In assigning the project to the science board last January, Michael W. Wynne, an under secretary of defense, wrote: "Our military expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism. We may need to support an ally under attack by terrorists determined to replace the legitimate government; we may need to effect change in the governance of a country that is blatantly sustaining support for terrorism; or we may need to assist an ally who is unable to govern areas of their own country, where terrorists may recruit, train and plan without interference by the legitimate government."

Under questioning by Senator Reed, Mr. Rumsfeld said the first goal is to maximize the use of troops already in the service by managing them better.

Mr. Rumsfeld cited a number of steps taken to ease the strain on the American military, including the shift of important combat skills from the reserves to active-duty troops, and the assignment of administrative tasks to civilians so those in uniform could return to combat duties.

Mr. Rumsfeld also complimented efforts by the Army to increase the number of combat-ready brigades by redesigning its divisions into more modular fighting units.

But he noted that if the reorganizations fail to field the military forces required by commanders, "then by golly, you`re right, we`ll have to go to an increase in end strength."

In brief comments to reporters following the hearing, Mr. Rumsfeld said the Defense Science Board "did a good job" with the study. Of the sections read into the public record, he cautioned, "You did not get a comprehensive synopsis" but only "a few paragraphs."

Mr. Rumsfeld declined to give a more thorough summary of the study.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Noch ein Opfer des Irak-Krieges?

September 24, 2004
Troubled Unit of Halliburton May Go on Block
By SIMON ROMERO

HOUSTON, Sept. 23 - When Halliburton was awarded contracts worth more than $12 billion for work in Iraq, critics said that the company was using its political connections to reap big profits. But now, in a sign that those contracts are not providing the boon executives had expected from a subsidiary weighed down by other problems, Halliburton said Thursday that it was considering a sale of the business.

The unit, KBR, which provides military and oil field services, has been plagued by losses, by investigations into its activities in Nigeria and Iran and by sizable asbestos claims. Making matters worse, KBR`s work in Iraq has not been as profitable as other activities and has contributed to a public relations nightmare for its parent. All of this has happened while KBR is seeking to emerge from bankruptcy protection.

The announcement by Halliburton, the nation`s largest energy services company, indicated that KBR`s problems have kept a lid on Halliburton`s stock price and hindered its ambitions to benefit from elevated oil prices.

In a meeting here with investors, Halliburton`s chief executive, David J. Lesar, said the company had become part of a "vicious campaign" of political attacks ahead of this year`s presidential election. Mr. Lesar has lamented Halliburton`s prominence as a target for critics of the Bush administration`s handling of the war in Iraq, and he repeated some of those concerns on Thursday.

Controversy is nothing new for the company, which was run by Vice President Dick Cheney for five years until 2000. KBR has long been associated with the coziness of politics and business in the oil industry in Texas, and has become a symbol of the reach of American energy conglomerates into many politically unsavory areas around the world. Halliburton acquired Brown & Root, the corporate ancestor of KBR, in 1962.

Still, Halliburton has been unable to avoid becoming a lightning rod for complaints about American corporations profiting from the war in Iraq since it became known in March 2003 that the company had been awarded the largest contracts in that country.

Mr. Lesar, in a sign of the exasperation of Halliburton`s management with such criticism, said that the company`s employees "don`t deserve to have their jobs threatened for political gain."

Halliburton said this month that it might reduce its activities in Iraq after it became apparent that the Army was planning to split up its largest Iraq contract, effectively dividing more than $12 billion of work among several companies. Halliburton has repeatedly had to respond to accusations that KBR overcharged the Defense Department for some of its services.

Among Halliburton`s most pressing concerns are investigations by French, American and Nigerian officials into KBR`s role in a payments scheme for its work on a liquid natural gas project in Nigeria in the 1990`s at a time when Mr. Cheney was Halliburton`s chief executive.

The Department of Justice is also investigating Halliburton`s activities in Iran, where it operates through a loophole allowing it to remain there despite American sanctions limiting business in that country.

"All of the issues and attention and criticism of Halliburton has been on the KBR side," said Michael Urban, an analyst at Deutsche Bank who listened to Mr. Lesar`s comments in Houston. "That`s probably why the market values KBR at about zero and why it should go. It`s about time."

The company said it would separate KBR through a sale, spinoff or initial public offering, options that might allow Halliburton to retain some degree of control over KBR. Any eventual separation would depend on whether the unit continued to lag behind its peers in stock price assessments, the company said.

In the second quarter, KBR reported an operating loss of $277 million, compared with a loss of $148 million a year earlier, on revenue of $3.1 billion. Halliburton`s other main line of business, the Energy Services Group, posted operating income in that quarter of $271 million, up from $36 million a year earlier, on revenue of $1.9 billion. Analysts say KBR has dragged down the shares of its parent. As recently as 2000, Halliburton`s shares traded in the $50`s; the shares climbed 18 cents Thursday, to close at $32.24, after investors reacted to Mr. Lesar`s comments.

Separating KBR from Halliburton has been advocated by many of the company`s investors for some time. The profit margins for KBR`s work in Iraq are significantly lower than those at other parts of Halliburton. KBR`s liabilities from asbestos claims, a legacy of a deal overseen by Mr. Cheney when he led the company, have also weighed on Halliburton`s stock price. Earlier this year, Halliburton won court approval of an asbestos settlement plan that would allow it to emerge from bankruptcy protection.

Investors have also grown uncomfortable with cost overruns at a project for Brazil`s national oil company that contributed to more than $600 million of losses earlier this year.

Then there is the continued criticism of Halliburton`s connections to Mr. Cheney and its work in Iraq, which have led some investors to completely stay away from the company.

"There`s a negative perception politically of KBR, whether it`s deserved or not," said Gary Russell, an analyst in Denver with Stifel Nicolaus, a brokerage firm. "It would be beneficial to divest it, because the market these days rewards pure-plays over diversified conglomerates."

Indeed, Halliburton`s corporate complexity, as well as its connections in Washington, have come at a cost. When Pentagon officials first decided in 2002 to secretly give the company`s KBR unit the job of rebuilding Iraq`s oil industry they say they realized their decision would probably become a political liability. "Everyone realized the selection of KBR was going to look bad, so the idea was to compete it out as quickly as possible," said one official involved in the selection.

When word of the no-bid contract surfaced a few days after the March 2003 invasion, Democrats in Congress quickly criticized the deal and pushed for a new contract. Eventually the oil contract was rebid, and KBR was awarded one of the two contracts. That did not stop the criticism: Mr. Cheney`s ties to the company and Halliburton`s work in Iraq have been a staple of campaign commercials by John F. Kerry and his allies. At least 45 of Halliburton`s employees and contractors have died in Iraq in the last year.

The company`s higher profile also led to more scrutiny by the media. Halliburton`s accounting practices on contracts were the focus of an inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company settled the case earlier this year, neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing, but agreeing to pay $7.5 million. Most of the settlement involved charges that Halliburton failed to cooperate fully with the commission.

And when the company has found itself under investigation, administration officials have been backers of the inquiries rather than defenders of the company. The administration, for example, has supported the Nigerian anticorruption agency that has been involved in investigating questionable gas deals in Nigeria involving KBR. And when Pentagon auditors questioned possible overcharges in Iraq by KBR, President Bush said last December that he expected the company to repay the $61 million if its subsidiary was found to have overcharged the Pentagon on a contract to deliver fuel to Iraq.

In recent years, as KBR increasingly branched out into the business of providing the United States military with services like food preparation and fuel transportation, Halliburton lagged behind energy-services competitors, including Schlumberger, the large French-American energy group, in investor assessments.

By shedding KBR, Halliburton could focus more on activities like finding, drilling and producing oil that are considered more valuable as energy companies try to seize on climbing energy prices.

Halliburton also said Thursday that it was seeking to cut as much as $100 million in costs at KBR, but declined to provide details on whether any job cuts were planned.

"This is about ridding themselves of a distraction, a steady stream of disappointing news," said Dan Pickering, president of Pickering Energy, an energy research company in Houston. "Halliburton would never have had the visibility it did in the last couple of years if not for KBR."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 24, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Bush Upbeat as Iraq Burns
By BOB HERBERT

George W. Bush was a supporter of the war in Vietnam. For a while.

As he explained in his autobiography, "A Charge to Keep: My Journey to the White House":

"My inclination was to support the government and the war until proven wrong, and that only came later, as I realized we could not explain the mission, had no exit strategy, and did not seem to be fighting to win."

How is it that he ultimately came to see the fiasco in Vietnam so clearly but remains so blind to the frighteningly similar realities of his own war in Iraq? Mr. Bush cannot explain our mission in Iraq and has nothing resembling an exit strategy, and his troops - hobbled by shortages of personnel and by potentially fatal American and Iraqi political considerations - are certainly not fighting to win.

As the situation in Iraq moves from bad to worse, the president, based on his public comments, seems to be edging further and further from reality. This is disturbing, to say the least. The news from Iraq is filled with reports of kidnappings and beheadings, of people pleading desperately for their lives, of American soldiers being ambushed and killed, of clusters of Iraqis being blown to pieces by suicide bombers, and of the prospects for a credible election in January tumbling toward nil.

The war effort has deteriorated so drastically that the administration is planning to take more than $3 billion earmarked for crucial reconstruction projects and shift them to security programs designed to ward off the increasingly deadly insurgency. A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for the president contained no really good prospects for Iraq. The best-case scenario was a country with only tenuous stability. The worst potential outcome was civil war.

The intelligence estimate was prepared in July, and the situation has only worsened since then.

Even Republicans are starting to voice their concerns about the unfolding disaster. When asked on CBS`s "Face the Nation" whether the U.S. was winning the war in Iraq, Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, said, "No, I don`t think we`re winning." He said the U.S. was "in deep trouble in Iraq" and that some "recalibration of policy" would be necessary to turn things around.

Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, said on "Fox News Sunday": "The situation has obviously been somewhat deteriorating, to say the least." He said "serious mistakes" have been made and that most of them "can be traced back to not having sufficient numbers of troops there."

These are not doves talking. These are supporters of President Bush who support the war in Iraq and believe it can be won. But they`re also in touch with reality.

President Bush does not share their sense of alarm. He acknowledged that "horrible scenes" are being shown on television and the Internet, but he was unmoved by the gloomy intelligence estimates. According to Mr. Bush: "The C.I.A. laid out several scenarios. It said that life could be lousy, life could be O.K., life could be better."

Que sera, sera.

The president said he is personally optimistic and he delivered an upbeat assessment of conditions in Iraq to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday. Iraq, he said, is well on its way to being "secure, democratic, federal and free."

If you spend more than a little time immersed in the world according to Karl Rove, you`ll find that words lose even the remotest connection to reality. They become nothing more than tools designed to achieve political ends. So it`s not easy to decipher what the president believes about Iraq.

This is scary. With Americans, Iraqis and others dying horribly in the long dark night of this American-led war, the world needs more from the president of the United States than the fool`s gold of his empty utterances.

Perhaps someone can dislodge the president from Karl`s clutches, shake him and tell him that his war is a tremendous tragedy with implications far beyond the election in November.

At the moment there is no evidence the president understands anything about the war. He led the nation into it with false pretenses. He never mobilized sufficient numbers of troops. He seemed to believe the war was over in May 2003. And he seems not to know how to proceed now.

The tragic lesson of Vietnam is staring the president in the face. But he`ll have to become better acquainted with the real world before he can even begin to learn from it.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 24, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Let`s Get Real
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Never mind the inevitable claims that John Kerry is soft on terrorism. What he must address is the question of how his policy in Iraq would differ from President Bush`s. And his answer should be that unlike Mr. Bush, whose decisions have been dictated at every stage by grandiose visions and wishful thinking, he will get real - focusing on what is really possible in Iraq, and what needs to be done to protect American security.

Mr. Bush claims that Mr. Kerry`s plan to secure and rebuild Iraq is "exactly what we`re currently doing." No, it isn`t. It`s only what Mr. Bush is currently saying. And we have 18 months of his administration`s deeds to contrast with his words.

The actual record is one of officials who have refused to admit that their fantasies about how the war would go were wrong, and who have continued to push us ever deeper into the quagmire because of their insistence that everything is going according to plan.

There has been a lot of press coverage of the administration`s failure to do anything serious about rebuilding Iraq. Less attention has been given to its parallel failure to take the security problem seriously until much of Iraq had already been lost.

Long after it was obvious to everyone else that we were engaged in an escalating guerrilla war, Bush appointees clung to the belief that they were fighting a handful of dead-enders and foreign terrorists.

As a result, they casually swelled the ranks of our foes - remember, Moktada al-Sadr was never going to be our friend, but he didn`t have to be our enemy. They even treated Iraqi security forces with contempt, not bothering to provide them with adequate training or equipment.

In an analysis titled "Inexcusable Failure," Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies details how the U.S. "failed to treat the Iraqis as partners in the counterinsurgency effort." U.S. officials, he declares, are "guilty of a gross military, administrative and moral failure."

That failure continues. All the evidence suggests that Bush officials still think that one more military push - after the U.S. election, of course - will end the insurgency. They`re still not taking the task of fighting a sustained guerrilla war seriously.

"Three months into its new mission," The New York Times reported, "the military command in charge of training and equipping Iraqi security forces has fewer than half of its permanent headquarters personnel in place."

At the root of this folly is a continuing refusal to face uncomfortable facts. Confronted with a bleak C.I.A. assessment of the Iraq situation - one that matches the judgment of just about every independent expert - Mr. Bush`s response is that "they were just guessing." "In many ways," Mr. Cordesman writes, "the administration`s senior spokesmen still seem to live in a fantasyland."

Fantasyland extended to the Rose Garden yesterday, where Mr. Bush said polls asking Iraqis whether their nation was on the right track were more positive than similar polls asking Americans about their outlook - and he seemed to consider that a good sign.

Where is Mr. Bush taking us? As the reality of Iraq gets worse, his explanations of our goals get ever vaguer. "The security of our world," Mr. Bush told the U.N., "is found in the advancing rights of mankind."

He doesn`t really believe that. After all, he continues to praise Russia`s president, Vladimir Putin, even as Mr. Putin strangles democratic institutions. The subtext of Mr. Bush`s bombast is that because he can`t bring himself to admit a mistake, he refuses to give up on his effort to turn Iraq into a docile client state - an effort that is doomed unless he can figure out a way to come up with a few hundred thousand more troops.

We don`t have to go there. American policy shouldn`t be dictated by Mr. Bush`s infallibility complex; our first priority must be our own security. And in Iraq, that means setting realistic goals.

On "Meet The Press" back in April, Mr. Kerry wasn`t as forthright about Iraq as he has now, at long last, become, but he did return several times to a point that shows that he is on the right track. "What is critical," he said, "is a stable Iraq." Not an Iraq in our image, but a country that isn`t a "failed state" that poses a threat to American security.

The Bush administration has made such a mess of Iraq that even achieving that goal will be very hard. But unlike Mr. Bush`s fantasies, it`s still in the realm of the possible.

E-mail: [e-mail]

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]
Informed Comment
[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Thoughts on the Middle East, History,and Religion
[/TABLE][Table align=left]

[/TABLE]

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Friday, September 24, 2004

Of Iron Fists and Oil Sabotage
Marine Killed in Anbar

Guerrillas in Anbar Province killed a Marine on Thursday.

US forces clashed with guerrillas in Samarra, signalling a breakdown of the truce earlier worked out between city elders and US commanders, which would have provided extensive reconstruction aid in return for the city`s acceptance of US patrols. The US forces called in strikes by helicopter gunships on the guerrillas.

Operation Iron Fist 2 against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City continued on Monday. The US employed tanks, helicopter gunships, and aerial bombardment by warplane in its assault on the militia (except that these are blunt instruments, which must inevitably harm civilians in the teeming East Baghdad slum). The fighting left one Iraqi dead and 12 wounded, many of them children.

Earlier on Thursday, guerrillas in Sadr City detonated a roadside bomb, wounding 3 US troops.


The guerrillas` attempt to sabotage Iraq`s oil economy continued on Thursday. The Detroit Free Press notes,


"Oil official killed: Gunmen killed a senior official of Iraq`s North Oil Co. in the northeastern city of Mosul on Thursday, less than two weeks after his boss escaped an assassination attempt. Also, saboteurs attacked an oil well near Baghdad and a pipeline in the south, officials said.

An official with the South Oil Co. said on condition of anonymity that the attack on the pipeline in the city of Najaf will not affect oil exports from the south, Iraq`s main port for oil shipments."



posted by Juan @ 9/24/2004 06:20:14 AM

Violence, Allawi, Sistani and Elections

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani continues to be concerned as to whether elections will be held in January in Iraq, and whether the outcome will reflect the Shiite majority in Iraq. He is worried that the system adopted, of nation-wide party lists, favors a small set of parties, mainly expatriate. Since the six major parties listed include the two (Sunni) Kurdish parties and the largely Sunni Iraqi National Accord (primarily ex-Baathists) led by Iyad Allawi, as well as the mixed Iraqi National Congress, I think Sistani is afraid that the al-Da`wa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq--the two main Shiite parties-- could end up with a minority in parliament.

Both Bush and Allawi affirmed on Thursday that elections would be held as promised. Donald Rumsfeld, whose uncontrollable mouth is sometimes useful insofar as he lets the truth slip, said that elections might not be possible in all the provinces. Allawi minimized the violence, saying that it was confined to 3 of Iraq`s 18 provinces. This assertion is simply untrue, and is anyway misleading because Baghdad is one of the three Allawi had in mind! Could an election that excluded the capital, with at least 5 million inhabitants, be considered valid? Denis D. Gray of AP notes:


"However, at least six provinces - Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Salahuddin, Kirkuk and Nineveh - have been the scene of significant attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi authorities in the past month. The only areas not plagued by bloodshed are the three northern provinces controlled by Kurds. The situation in many areas, however, is unknown since journalists` travel is restricted by security fears."



(Why is it that only print journalists, and increasingly not television ones, challenge such disinformation from politicians any more?)

The situation is even worse than Gray allows. As recently as August, the British expended 100,000 rounds of ammunition in Maysan province at Amara, saying they had the most intense fighting since the Korean War! Likewise there was heavy fighting in Wasit (Kut) and Najaf. In the map below I made the present security-challenged provinces red, and those that saw recent heavy fighting purple. I ask you if this looks like the problems are in "3 of 18 provinces," or whether it looks to you like elections held only in the white areas (as Donald Rumsfeld seems to envision) would produce a legitimate government:


[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

The Allawi/ Rumsfeld logic, moreover, presumes that the guerrilla resistance is only able to disrupt the elections in the Sunni Arab provinces. But they have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to strike all over the country. If a long line of prospective voters were standing in Nasiriyah in the south, do you seriously think the guerrillas couldn`t manage to direct some rocket-propelled grenade fire at them? Set off a car bomb?

The real reason for the current plan to raze Fallujah in November or December is the hope that doing so will dramatically reduce the operational capability of the guerrillas, forestalling the Nasiriyah scenario I just mentioned. I don`t think that the guerrillas are so geographically limited or concentrated, however, and very much doubt that this Carthaginian strategy in al-Anbar will work.

Moreover, not having elections in al-Anbar and West Baghdad would be a disaster. The red areas are where the Sunni Arab former ruling minority is situated. They are the backbone of the guerrilla war. If they feel unrepresented by the new government, what incentive do they have to cease their warfare?

On the other hand, if the elections are not held or if their results are widely considered illegitimate, there is a danger that that result will radicalize Sistani and cause him to bring the masses into the street.

Odysseus had to steer between the two monsters of Scylla and Charybdis. So to does the US in Iraq.

posted by Juan @ [url9/24/2004 06:02:30 AM]http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109600879850724698[/url]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

What`s Wrong With John Kerry?
Is it the hair? The lack of charisma? Or do we just wish he was more angry and ruthless?
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, September 24, 2004

He is not Bill Clinton.

Just gotta say it again, right off, because it is, quite possibly, still the most difficult fact for most moderates and Demos to accept, even now: Kerry is not Clinton. Kerry is not JFK. Kerry is not quite even Al Gore. We have to accept it. Let`s go from there.

It bears repeating because, as tens of millions (billions, even) across the planet realize, Bush is so obviously ripe, so obviously dripping with glaring misprision, so deeply rife with flaw and bumble and moronism, and his policies are so full of gaping holes and his ethics are so full of hostile lies and his wars are so lacking in WMDs and "nukuler" plants and any sort of justification, well, you`d think any decent opponent worth his sound bite would have a veritable cakewalk stomping Dubya`s little cowboy brain into powdery AWOL Texas cow-pie smithereens.

But so far, it ain`t happening. The BushCo spin machine is lethal and malicious and formidable indeed, for one thing. The Repubs are phenomenally well funded and absolutely heartless, and it cannot be understated how effective your campaign can be when you have zero ethics about attacking your opponent and zero moral compass and zero accountability and when you have Karl Rove for an underhanded heat-seeking attack-dog missile of bile and innuendo and slander and smear.

But for two, it has to be acknowledged: Kerry ain`t exactly a firestorm of magnetism and inspiration. He is, unfortunately, more than a little staid, pedestrian, beige. On Letterman, on "The Daily Show," on Leno, he was finely honed and well groomed and grinning and likable enough, a true die-hard patrician politician almost completely devoid of modern-day TV-ready sparkle and zing. He`s just so ... solid. And book learned. And experienced. And deeply intelligent. American translation: yawn.

But is this really why many moderates just can`t get themselves to like Kerry all that much, even if they agree with his policies and his stellar environmental record and his Vietnam heroism and even if they know Bush really, really has to go? Because he`s just too sober and conventional? Or is it the hair? The WASP entitlement? The booming, deadening oratory style?

Or is it the lack of a winking charm, of a flirtatious Clintonesque gleam in the eye that says he`s onto this whole bulls-- game and knows how to play it better than anyone and can flaunt the well-known fact that any 8-year-old can outmaneuver George W. Bush in a contest of intellect and acumen and simple algebra? Yea, verily.

Simply put, Kerry is disliked because he is just not enjoyably slick enough. Or cleverly cold blooded enough. Or deftly manipulative enough. And in this day and age, if you ain`t massively and strategically calculating on a hundred different levels (or if you don`t, like Bush, have a snarling team of demon dogs to orchestrate it all for you), you`re hamburger.

This, then, is the bizarre conundrum. Where Bush is all bumbling mispronunciations and massive stacks of warmongering lies and foreign policy like an international cancer, Kerry is simply "annoying."

Where Bush has let more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers die in Iraq with nary a shrug and has allowed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians -- women and children included -- to be killed over his bogus and lie-strewn war and when he openly refuses to admit his appalling mistakes and holds an absolutely unwavering and imbecilic brick-headed conviction that war is good and God is on our side and money and stick size decide all conflicts, Kerry is ... what, again? Oh, right, a little bit "flip-floppy."

Normally, Kerry would be an impressive enough contender, especially against Dubya. Kerry can, after all, speak in complete, polysyllabic sentences. He can read above a high school level. He can speak extemporaneously, without a TelePrompter. He is not loathed the world over and is not widely considered the most dangerous and reckless and hostile leader of any free-world country on the planet.

Kerry may not be Mr. Charisma, but he is clear eyed, and lucid, and genuinely seems to care about making the country slightly more respectable among our furious allies again. How very horrible.

But, then again, this ain`t no normal election. The GOP, they are dialed in like never before. They are on point. They know how to violently exploit the NASCAR dad`s fears of gays, of women, of "furriners." They know how to terrify gullible soccer moms with images of swarthy fundamentalists who want to eat their precious babies.

Call it the Rove effect. It`s all in the spin, baby. It`s all in the presentation. It has little to do with your own atrocities and lies and contemptible actions, nothing to do with your inept military service or environmental records, nothing to do with letting Osama run free while bombing other nonthreatening countries at will. It has everything to do with image, with personal vendetta, with "character."

Same as it ever was? Maybe. But this time, there`s a decidedly malicious GOP-bred methodology at work, one that seems to be operating at a level normally reserved for dictatorships and military coups and brutal autocratic regimes.

After all, any administration that would shamelessly hijack the 9/11 tragedy for its own hateful, isolationist agenda is capable of just about anything. And if they get four more carte blanche years to really gut the world and go after the heart of this nation, all bets are off.

Which is exactly why so many of us desperately want Kerry to be cutthroat and ferocious and deadly. We want him to be savage and quick witted and able to effortlessly tick off the shopping list of astounding BushCo atrocities on one hand while rabbit-punching Karl Rove`s big puffy face with the other, all while knocking out a clever pun related to Dubya sitting on Cheney`s lap and burping softly, like a stupefied baby.

Instead, we get a Kerry who appears to want to take the Gore-like, policy-wonk, issues-first approach. Kerry, like the Dems overall, hasn`t seemed nearly heartless and merciless enough for this fight. Kerry wants to have a respectable duel with pistols, whereas Bush wants to kick you in the genitals while your back is turned and then run away giggling and snorting and jump into Rove`s open arms for a big homoerotic hug.

The good news is, as this bizarre election races toward us, Kerry is indeed stepping up his attacks, getting his focus, nailing Bush on a wide array of issues like never before. And we can only pray that in the upcoming debates that Bush tried to shun like bright sunlight, Kerry will make Dubya stumble and mutter and bonk his baffled head into the podium and wail for Jesus to save his shriveled, spoon-fed soul.

But I suppose this is the saddest part of all. That is, how cheerless and heartbreaking is it when you are essentially forced to wish that your candidate would be more ruthless, more cutthroat, more ferocious. When deep down you long for a little dignity among your leaders, some humanitarian deftness, some way to salvage a shred of spirit and hope amongst the political carnage.

Not this time. After all, sometimes, when playing badminton with the devil, you gotta screw the birdies and lob a couple grenades.


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. Subscribe to this column at sfgate.com/newsletters.


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/200…

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

TRIUMPH OF THE STULTOCRACY
NEW YORK--"Kerry doesn`t know what the working-class people do; he hasn`t done any physical labor all his life," Sharon Alfman, a 51-year-old cook in New Lexington, Ohio, told a New York Times reporter. It`s true. Kerry is a rich boy. But then she added: "Bush`s values are middle-class family values."

George W. Bush earned $727,000 last year. Estimates of his net worth range between $9 and $26 million. Middle class he most assuredly is not. Working class he never has been. Like fellow Skull and Bones member John Kerry, man of the people he never will be. But it matters that Sharon Altman thinks he is. Unless you too are a voter living in a swing state like Ohio, her vote counts more than yours.

Demonstrating that stupefying ignorance can be bipartisan, another Ohioan interviewed for the same article said she is against the war in Iraq because, like 42 percent of her fellow Americans, she thinks Iraq was behind 9/11: "We shouldn`t be over there building them back up because they didn`t build our towers back up." She is wrong on so many levels that it makes my brain hurt.

Both women are entitled to their unawareness. We can`t pass a law to force them to read the paper. But neither of these people ought to force their fellow citizens to suffer the consequences of their being so uninformed. Voting should be a privilege earned by an intellectually engaged citizen, not a right given to any adult with a pulse.

All men are created equal, declared the Founders. But as Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in "Democracy in America," universal suffrage counts upon the existence of a responsible, well-educated citizenry in order to result in political equality. If you give the vote to morons, you get the "tyranny of the masses"--a lumpen proletariat prone to manipulation by demagogues and fools--such as that which created chaos and bloodshed in post-revolutionary France. We`re all equal at birth, but what we do later determines whether or not our opinions are worthwhile.

At this writing, the world`s greatest nation flails under the rule of buffoons and madmen, bogged down in two optional wars we`re actually losing. The world`s richest economy is shedding jobs, running up debts and building nothing for the future. Voters, offered an election year alternative to the subliterate idiot who single-handedly created this mess, spurn him for a leader even dumber than they are. America has become a stultocracy: government by morons, for morons.

A 2002 poll found that 64 percent of Americans--people whose votes help determine how much you pay in taxes--could not name a single Supreme Court justice. In 2003, 58 percent--people whose votes could elect someone who starts a nuclear war--couldn`t identify a single department of the president`s cabinet. Voters aged 18 to 24, whose recent schooling ought to inspire confidence in their knowledge of basic facts, are especially ignorant. National Geographic says that 85 percent of young American adults can`t find Afghanistan, Iraq or Israel on a map.

The fact that these yahoos are allowed to vote is an abomination. Their ill-considered ballots cancel or dilute those cast by those who do the heavy lifting that makes them good citizens: keeping abreast of current events, researching issues, studying candidates` positions.

In the Old South, literacy tests were used to disenfranchise blacks. Alternatively, a basic political literacy test should be used to ensure that anyone who picks ESPN over CNN--regardless of race or creed--stays home on Election Day. Prospective voters should be required to answer at least three of the following questions correctly; to give people a fair shot, the test should be published in newspapers a week before an election:

1. Who is the vice president?

2. What is your state capital?

3. Name one of the following: your governor, congressman or one senator.

4. What is the capital of the United States?

5. Name one federal cabinet-level department.

Of course, such a political literacy test would drastically reduce voter turnout. On the other hand, those who pass could take comfort in knowing that they`re not competing against the 60 percent of Americans who think we`ve found Iraq`s imaginary WMDs, or the 22 percent who "believe" that Saddam Hussein used such weapons against U.S. troops during the 2003 invasion.

COPYRIGHT 2004 TED RALL

RALL 9/21/04

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

POLITICS-U.S.:
Human Dignity, Crazy Mike, and Indian Country

Analysis by Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON, Sep 24 (IPS) - The reason why Washington is having such a difficult time persuading of its good faith and its good works in the ”war on terror” was best illustrated Tuesday this week.

While President George W. Bush told the U.N. General Assembly that the U.S. belief in ”human dignity” -- a phrase he used no less than 10 times -- was the main U.S. motivation for pursuing the war, two articles that appeared in two major U.S. newspapers the same morning offered an altogether different subtext.

The first piece, titled ”Indian Country”, was written by one of the administration`s geo-strategic gurus, Robert D. Kaplan, and published on the editorial page of the `Wall Street Journal`.

Kaplan, who is writing a series of books about the U.S. military, extolled the wonders of U.S. Special Forces operating in small units from ”forward operating bases” (FOBs) without direction from any ”Washington bureaucracy” and outside the scrutiny of the global media.

Just like ”in the days of fighting the Indians”, wrote Kaplan, ”the smaller the tactical unit, the more forward deployed it is, and the more autonomy it enjoys from the chain of command, the more that can be accomplished”.

Unbeknownst to Kaplan and, presumably, to Bush, as well, the Los Angeles Times that morning was publishing a front-page article that gave one example of precisely what such a unit could do.

Based on reports by a U.N. team, the Washington-based Crimes of War Project, and the office of the Afghan Armed Forces attorney general, the Times described how U.S. Special Forces at one FOB in southeastern Afghanistan last year beat and tortured eight Afghan soldiers over no less than 17 days, until one of their victims, 18-year-old Jamal Naseer, died.

The eight were taken to the Special Forces FOB near Gardez on Mar. 1, 2003, after they were seized while manning a security checkpoint amid suspicions, apparently planted by local faction leaders competing for U.S. support, that Afghan army units in the area were selling arms to the Taliban.

According to the consistent testimony of the men, they were ”pummeled, kicked, karate-chopped, hung upside down and struck repeatedly with sticks, rubber hoses and plastic-covered cables”, the Times reported. ”Some said they were immersed in cold water, then made to lie in the snow. Some said they were kept blindfolded for long periods and subjected to electric shocks to their toes”.

During their ordeal, they were never given medical help or even provided with a change of clothes.

After Naseer`s death, his battered body and the seven survivors were handed over to local Afghan police by a Special Forces commander who threatened to kill the police chief if he released any of the prisoners, according to an official of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), who witnessed the warning.

They were held there with as many as 13 other inmates in a ”secret detention room” built for five prisoners for the next month and a half -- apparently until their wounds had healed. UNAMA interviewed them during their stay there and found that their injuries were consistent with their testimony.

They were finally transferred to a prison near Kabul and released after authorities there found no evidence that they had committed any crimes or had ties to anti-government groups. The prison also referred the case to the attorney general.

The Afghan military has requested an explanation of the incident from the U.S. military authorities, according to the attorney general`s report, who so far have provided no response. After the Times` began inquiring about the case last weekend, the Pentagon announced that it has launched a criminal investigation.

But as of Tuesday, investigators said they did not know who precisely was running the Gardez base, other than units from the 20th Special Forces Group based in Birmingham, Alabama.

Consistent with Kaplan`s notion that the Special Forces should operate as independently as possible from Washington bureaucrats, however, an Army detective in Kabul told the Times, ”There are no records... There are no SOPs (standard operating procedures).... and each unit acts differently”.

”Mike”, the name used by the commanding officer of the FOB at the time, is a common pseudonym for intelligence and Special Forces officers working in Afghanistan, although this particular ”Mike” apparently stood out for his aggressiveness, because at least one of his fellow soldiers referred to him as ”Crazy Mike”.

At a Mar. 10, 2003 meeting -- that is, 10 days into the victims` captivity -- ”Crazy Mike” attended a security meeting sponsored by UNAMA in Gardez during which he warned local Afghan commanders that he would kill any of them if they released prisoners taken by his unit.

It`s unclear whether ”Crazy Mike” was also the commander who threatened the local chief police with death if he released the prisoners.

The commander of the detained Afghan unit was Naseer`s older brother. He testified that after Naseer`s death, there was an argument between two U.S. officers during which one grabbed the other by the collar and said that Naseer should have been shot rather than tortured. One U.S. officer offered condolences and money, which was refused, according to the brother`s account.

Naseer`s death was never officially reported up the chain of command, so that the Pentagon`s recent report in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal that a total of 39 detainees have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan now appears incomplete.

How incomplete is, of course, unknown, and the incident at Gardez may, indeed, be another case of a ”few rotten apples” that the administration has tried blame for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

On the other hand, this latest incident -- and particularly the fact that it was carried out over almost two weeks -- certainly adds to the impression that abuses of detainees were indeed far more pervasive the administration has ever admitted.

Kaplan, whose 2001 best-selling book, `Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos`, extolled waging war without mercy, has long argued that maintaining global order is a rough business and that even ”successful” wars like those against the Indians or the U.S. counter-insurgency campaign in the Philippines a century ago inevitably lead to excesses. The extent that they can be kept out of the media spotlight -- which, of course, is precisely what the Bush administration has tried to do -- is all to the good, according to Kaplan`s perspective.

”`In Indian country`, as one general officer told me, `you want to whack bad guys quietly and cover your tracks with humanitarian-aid projects,”` Kaplan wrote Tuesday.

”The red Indian metaphor is one with which a liberal policy nomenklatura may be uncomfortable,” he went on, ”but Army and Marine field officers have embraced it because it captures perfectly the combat challenge of the early 21st century”.

Noting that it was the great Victorian leader, William Gladstone, who called on British troops to protect ”the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan”, Kaplan stressed that U.S. leaders must also appeal to the idealism of their citizens in another article he wrote last year on U.S. supremacy.

”Americans are truly idealistic by nature, but even if we weren`t, our historical and geographical circumstances necessitate that U.S. foreign policy be robed in idealism,” Kaplan wrote in the same article. ”And yet security concerns necessarily make our foreign policy more pagan”.

”Speak Victorian, Think Pagan,” he advised U.S. policymakers. And, thus, while the U.N. delegates must have heard Bush`s rhetoric about ”human dignity”, they might have been thinking about ”Crazy Mike” in ”Indian Country”. (END/2004)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Sep 25, 2004


Iraq held hostage to terror
By Sudha Ramachandran

BANGALORE - While the US, Britain and Italy, whose citizens have been taken hostage, have refused to concede demands of hostage-takers, militant groups have sent out clear signals that they, too, mean business.
[Table align=left]

[/TABLE]
Two American contractors, Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong, and a British engineer, Ken Bigley, were abducted from Baghdad, with their kidnappers demanding the release of Iraqi women prisoners. Early this week, Hensley and Armstrong were beheaded, and Bigley`s fate is uncertain. On Thursday, a group calling itself Jihad Organization claimed on an Islamist website that it had "slaughtered" two Italian aid workers taken hostage more than two weeks ago. The claim is yet to be confirmed. Britain and Italy are part of the US-led coalition in Iraq and have refused to pull out their troops deployed there.

Hostage-taking has emerged as a powerful "smart weapon" in the Iraqi insurgents` arsenal. However, it does seem that its indiscriminate use could alienate Muslim opinion. This is evident from the response of the Arab world to the abduction in the last week of August of two French journalists, Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot.

The Islamic Army of Iraq that abducted them demanded that France lift a ban on Islamic headscarves in state schools. This is the first time since the kidnapping of foreigners started in Iraq in April that hostage-takers have laid down conditions external to Iraq.

Muslim religious and political leaders who have hitherto maintained silence on the issue of hostage-taking responded sharply to the kidnapping of Malbrunot and Chesnot. Lebanon`s senior-most Shi`ite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, described the abduction as "a brutal operation on the human level, a bad one on the Islamic level, and a losing one on the political level". The abductions and their link to the headscarf ban "provokes the ire of Muslim scholars and intellectuals worldwide", Fadlallah said.

Among those who have criticized the abduction of the French journalists are Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the Palestinian militant group Hamas, Egypt`s outlawed Islamist militant group the Muslim Brotherhood, and Syria`s Grand Mufti Ahmad Kuftaro.

France was at the forefront of the international opposition to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is seen as a friend of the Arab world. The kidnapping of other Westerners working in Iraq has failed to evoke such a response from the Arab world and this has to do with the fact that their governments are part of the US-led coalition.

While gruesome decapitations of foreign hostages and the hosting of videos of the beheading have generated considerable revulsion among Muslims, especially moderate opinion, denunciations have not been as vociferous as in the case of the French hostages. The general feeling is that the West is outraged over a few executions and gives endless footage to hostages in the media, while the killing of thousands of Iraqis and Palestinians goes by largely ignored.

Indeed, more Iraqis than foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq, but their plight has gone by mostly unreported. Hundreds of Iraqi businessmen and professionals have been abducted and held for ransom since the ouster of the Saddam Hussein government and the subsequent breakdown of law and order in Iraq last year. More than 135 foreigners working in Iraq have been abducted in recent months. While most have been freed, more than 30 are said to have been executed by their captors - more than a third of the executed were beheaded.

The kidnapping of foreign workers began in April when the al-Saraya Mujahideen (Mujahideen Brigades) took three Japanese and four Italians, one of whom was subsequently killed. The beheading of hostages began a month later. A 26-year-old American, Nick Berg, was abducted and then decapitated. Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Unity and Holy War), an Islamist group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and with links to al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility for the beheading.

Since then, al-Tawhid wal-Jihad has claimed responsibility for at least seven other executions of hostages, including Korean translator Kim Sun-il, Bulgarian truck drivers Georgi Lazov and Ivaylo Kepov, and the American contractors, Hensley and Armstrong.

The Islamic Army in Iraq`s record on kidnappings is almost as fearsome. It abducted Angelo de la Cruz, the now-freed Filipino hostage; killed an Italian hostage and is now holding two French journalists hostage.

Another group that has been active in the hostage-taking business is Ansar al-Sunna (Followers of the Tradition). It claimed to have murdered an Arab holding US citizenship and captured a US marine of Lebanese origin. It kidnapped 12 Nepalese workers and then executed them. Others include the Holders of the Black Banners, which kidnapped seven truck drivers and then freed them, and the Islamic Movement for Iraq`s Mujahideen, which freed a Lebanese hostage in recognition of "his country`s resistance against Israel".

The most common condition for release put forward by these groups is that countries to which their hostages belong pull out troops stationed in Iraq, that the companies they work for stop doing business in Iraq or provide services that will result in the stabilization of the US occupation. The groups that are engaged in hostage-taking might all be opposed to the presence of the US-led occupation forces in Iraq, but not all of them are in the kidnapping business for political reasons. Some are mere criminal gangs who have seen the immense possible prospects of profit that hostage-taking holds out. These abduct foreign workers in Iraq, cloaking conditions for their release with political issues. It is money finally that secures the release of the hostages.

The Black Banners demanded that India pull out its troops from Iraq - when India has no troops in Iraq. They then demanded that the employer of the three Indian hostages, Kuwait and Gulf Link Transport Company (KGL), halt operations in Iraq. The negotiations to secure the release of the hostages were protracted, not because the issues being discussed were intractable political ones but because of hard wrangling over money. Ultimately, US$500,000 paid by KGL to the kidnappers did the trick and the hostages were released.

It appears that local criminal gangs do the actual kidnapping. The hostages are then sold up the chain to larger militant outfits, which use the hostages as pawns and bargaining chips. Foreign hostages apparently carry a higher price tag.

Many of the abductions in Iraq have been attributed to al-Zarqawi or to "groups with links to al-Zarqawi". This could be because a large number of gangs might be supplying his group with hostages - hence the many groups with "links to al-Zarqawi".

But a more plausible explanation lies in the way Islamist militant groups are evolving post-September 11, 2001. Just as al-Qaeda has groups with links to it, so also al-Zarqawi`s al-Tawhid wal-Jihad with outfits in Iraq. Terrorist cells and outfits with links to al-Qaeda have proliferated across the world. What links these groups is a similar outlook and ideology. The al-Qaeda-linked groups act under different names and carry out attacks on their own.

Dia`a Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on militant groups, likens this phenomenon to "McDonald`s giving out franchises ... All they have to do is follow the company`s manual. They don`t consult with headquarters every time they want to produce a meal."

It is possible that the various groups engaged in the kidnapping of foreigners in Iraq are "franchises" of al-Zarqawi`s al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. A similar ideology and opposition to the US and its allies bond them. They might even supply one another with hostages. But they act under different names - sometimes very similar names - contributing to the coalition`s confusion over the identity of the groups that are taking their citizens hostage.

The taking of hostages is proving more useful in generating terror than even suicide bombings. Suicide bombings have been regarded as a low-cost, high-yield "smart weapon" in a militant group`s armory. Hostage-taking is smarter. It allows for very specific targeting. The investment and planning required for abduction are far less. In suicide attacks, bombers strapped with explosives have to evade security checkpoints or devise ways to breach highly secured installations and buildings. But the chances of being caught while going after aid workers, truckers or contractors is almost nil, especially in a country where law and order have collapsed. And with criminal gangs willing to kidnap for a price, implementation of the tactic is even easier for an insurgent group. It is a virtually risk-free method.

Hostage-taking has become the Iraqi insurgents` favored means of pursuing the anti-coalition agenda. But indiscriminate choice of victims and excessive use along with grisly decapitation of victims could undermine international support for the Iraqi cause.

Sudha Ramachandran is an independent researcher/writer based in Bangalore, India. She has a doctoral degree from the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, in New Delhi. Her areas of interest include terrorism, conflict zones, and gender and conflict. Formerly an assistant editor at the Deccan Herald (Bangalore), she now teaches at the Asian College of Journalism, Chennai.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact [e-mail] for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 24. September 2004, 17:23
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,319530,00.h…

Orientalistentag

Mohammed Atta unterm Mikroskop

Aus Halle berichtet Yassin Musharbash

Hunderte Islamwissenschaftler, Arabisten und Orientalisten trafen sich diese Woche in Halle an der Saale zum ersten Orientalistentag nach dem 11. September 2001. Das Thema Terror spielte eine große Rolle. Das Fazit der Akademiker: Wir haben Expertenwissen genug. Aber wir werden nicht gehört.

Nachdem Mohammed Atta und seine Mitverschwörer am 11. September 2001 in das World Trade Center und das Pentagon geflogen waren, fand man in einer liegen gebliebenen Reisetasche Attas ein vierseitiges, arabisches Dokument. Es handelte sich um eine Anleitung für die Stunden vor dem Anschlag. Innerhalb von Tagen tauchten Auszüge des Textes in Tageszeitungen und Magazinen auf. Die Weltöffentlichkeit wollte schließlich wissen, was die Attentäter dachten. Und zwar möglichst schnell.

"Zum Teil waren das aber grob falsche Übersetzungen", moniert der Islamwissenschaftler Tilman Seidensticker, der in Jena lehrt. Er hat nun, gemeinsam mit Fachkollegen, Politologen und Religionswissenschaftlern, die erste wissenschaftliche Übersetzung und Einordnung dieses Dokuments vorgelegt. Drei Jahre nach den Anschlägen. Trotzdem ist der schmale Band wertvoll: Er dokumentiert, was Islamwissenschaftler und Arabisten können - und außer ihnen fast niemand.

Woran es allerdings mangelt, das ist die Außenwirkung islamwissenschaftlicher Studien. Politologen und Soziologen haben sich längst ein Deutungsmonopol erstritten, wenn es um Terror - auch islamischen - geht. Orientalisten dagegen arbeiten zu leise und zu langsam, um Teil der medialen Verwertungskette zu sein. Das liegt auch daran, dass nicht wenige sich im universitären Elfenbeinturm wohler fühlen als im Fernsehstudio. Zwei-Minuten-Statements gelten als unseriös. Die Zahl der Veröffentlichungen zum Thema ist überschaubar.

"Wir haben unsere Hausaufgaben gemacht"

Dabei haben Arbeiten wie die von Seidensticker und seinen Kollegen unbestreitbare und relevante Vorzüge. Da wäre zunächst einmal die penible Übersetzung samt Identifizierung aller enthaltenen Koranstellen und Prophetenzitate. Und da findet sich, noch wichtiger, eine Einordnung des Atta-Textes in das seit 1400 Jahren bestehende Genre der islamischen "Schlachtrede". Warum ist das wichtig? Weil die Autoren zeigen können, dass die Operation des 11. September von den Attentätern als "Neuinszenierung einer frühislamischen Schlacht" geplant wurde. Gestützt auf diese - zeitraubend und quasi unter dem Mikroskop gewonnenen - Erkenntnisse weisen sie überzeugend die These zurück, die Anschläge seien irrational und destruktiv, gar apokalyptisch oder nihilistisch beeinflusst gewesen.

Rund 700 Orientalisten, Islamwissenschaftler und Arabisten haben sich in dieser Woche in Halle an der Saale eingefunden, um sich auszutauschen. Viele Orchideenthemen werden hier behandelt, es geht um neu entdeckte Bronzetafeln, arabische Lehnwörter im Kanuri oder Seeräuberei in den Barbareskenstaaten. Schließlich betreibt auch nach dem 11. September nicht jeder Orientalist auf einmal Terrorforschung. Aber es gibt Ansätze, das eigene, spezifische Fachwissen zum aktuellen Terror in Bezug zu setzen. Seidensticker beispielsweise ist eigentlich Experte für arabische Literatur.

Schon vor dem 11. September, sagt Seidensticker, habe die deutsche Orientalistik Themen mit aktuellem Bezug nicht vernachlässigt. Er selbst bot schon vor Jahren Seminare zu dem mittelalterlichen Rechtsgelehrten Ibn Taymiya an - eine Figur, auf die Qaida-Publikationen oft Bezug nehmen, weil der Damaszener die islamrechtlichen Grundlagen für die Bekämpfung "vom Glauben abgefallener" Muslime formulierte. Al-Qaida braucht solche Rechtfertigungen, um etwa die saudische Regierung anzugreifen. Solche Zusammenhänge, wünscht sich Seidensticker, müssten besser vermittelt werden.

Nicht alle Orientalisten scheuen die Öffentlichkeit

Freilich hat auch diese Zunft ihre Stars, die sich schon längst ins Rampenlicht trauen. Katajun Amirpur zählt dazu: Die Islamwissenschaftlerin meldet sich in Zeitungsdebatten zu Wort und tritt im Fernsehen auf. Auf dem Orientalistentag hielt sie drei Vorträge zu aktuellen Themen, erklärte zum Beispiel die Beziehungen zwischen schiitischen Religionsführern des Iraks und Irans.

Ihre These, dass die irakische Schiitenhochschule von Nadschaf dabei sei, die bislang dominierende im iranischen Qom zu überflügeln, ist brisant: Entspricht sie der Wahrheit, so Amirpur, stelle das eine Gefahr für das iranische System dar - weil der Schiitenführer von Nadschaf, der greise Ali al-Sistani, der iranischen Theokratie ablehnend gegenüber steht. Seine Schüler könnten dereinst das iranische System von Innen in Frage stellen.

Islamwissenschaftler Steinberg: Mehr Öffentlichkeit suchen
Selten haben sich die Orientalisten auf ihrer Fachtagung so viel Zeit für die Analyse akuter Krisenherde genommen. Es gab Panels zur Situation in Tschetschenien und Afghanistan oder zum Islam in Europa und dem islamischen Religionsunterricht in Deutschland. Stefan Rosiny erarbeitete eine Typologie schiitischer Führer, die bei der Einordnung des radikalen irakischen Predigers Muktada al-Sadr sehr hilfreich ist. Ein geplantes Extra-Podium zum Thema Terror kam indes nicht zustande - mangels Experten.

Mehr Einmischung gefordert

Ausgeglichen wurde dieser blinde Fleck allerdings durch einen Vortrag des Islamwissenschaftlers Guido Steinberg, der in Berlin im Kanzleramt tätig ist und über das Terrornetzwerk al-Qaida und das im Entstehen begriffene des Abu Musab al-Sarkawi im Irak sprach. Steinbergs Hauptthese lautet, dass der islamistische Terrorismus keineswegs so internationalistisch ist, wie er oft beschrieben wird.

In Wahrheit zielten die Terroristen, auch jene, die sich unter dem Mantel der al-Qaida zusammengefunden haben, auf ihre arabischen Heimatregierungen. Dass die USA ins Fadenkreuz des Terrors geraten sind, erkläre sich durch die Annahme der Terroristen, dass die arabischen Regime sich nicht halten können, wenn die USA erst einmal zum Abzug aus dem Nahen Osten gezwungen worden seien oder ihren Einfluss auf die Regierungen verlören.

Wenn aber, so Steinberg in seinem viel gelobten Vortrag weiter, der Terror in der Unzufriedenheit seinen Ursprung habe, dann seien Wissenschaftler mit Regionalexpertise - vulgo: Islamwissenschaftler, Arabisten und Orientalisten - in einer besonderen Verantwortung, diesen Gründen nachzuspüren und auf Lösungen hinzuweisen. Steinberg rief die Fachkollegen deshalb zu einem "offensiveren Umgang mit der Öffentlichkeit" auf. Die Orientalistik müsse sich vor diesem Hintergrund auch mehr als bisher mit dem Feld der Internationalen Beziehungen auseinandersetzen.

"Das ist genau das, was wir auf einem Orientalistentag brauchen", kommentierte enthusiastisch ein Teilnehmer den Vortrag, den er als Signal verstanden wissen wollte. Wir werden gebraucht, wir haben genügend Expertise - wir werden nur noch nicht ausreichend gehört, so lautete das allgemeine Fazit. Rezepte, wie das zu ändern sei, wurden in Halle allerdings nicht beraten. Zurzeit gibt es nicht einmal eine systematische Vernetzung derjenigen Islamwissenschaftler, die sich mit dem Terrorismus befassen. Nicht nur muss die Öffentlichkeit genauer hinhören - die Orientalisten müssen auch lauter werden.

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2004

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Ich habe schon öfter über die Probleme für die US-National Gardisten berichtet.
Heute werden diese in den Krieg geschickt. Vor 30 Jahren, als es noch eine Wehrpflicht gab, wurde die Nationial Guard von den Drückebergern z.B. Bush als Fluchtpunkt, um den Vietnam-Krieg zu vermeiden, benutzt.
Die Frage, die mit diesem Problem auftaucht, hat natürlich auch den Vorteil, nämlich, dass die NeoCon-Chickenhawks nicht genügend Soldaten haben, um das nächste Land zu überfallen.
Das weiß auch der Iran und deshalb wird er garnicht daran denken, sein Atomprogramm zu stoppen. Vielleicht wird das Problem Israel lösen mit einem Bombardement des iranischen Atomkraftwerkes.



September 24, 2004
"I Think a Lot of Guys will Break Down in Iraq"
Destroying the National Guard

http://www.counterpunch.org/lind09242004.html

By WILLIAM S. LIND

The unit knew it would soon be shipped to the front. Some soldiers responded by deserting. Others got drunk and fought. In response, officers locked the unit in its barracks, allowing the troops out only to drill, not even to smoke a cigarette, until it could be put on the transport that would take it into combat.

It sounds as if I am describing some third echelon Soviet infantry regiment in, say, 1942. In fact, I am talking about the 1st Battalion of the 178th Field Artillery Regiment, South Carolina National Guard, in September 2004. According to a front-page story in the September 19 Washington Post, the unit was disintegrating even before it was deployed to Iraq. One shudders to think what will happen once it gets there and finds itself under daily attack from skilled enemies it cannot identify.

One of the likely effects of the disastrous war in Iraq will be the destruction of an old American institution, the National Guard. Desperate for troops as the situation in Iraq deteriorates, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is using the National Guard in a mission for which it was never intended: carrying on a "war of choice" halfway around the world. Most Guardsmen enlisted expecting to help their neighbors in natural disasters, or perhaps maintain order locally in the event of rioting. They never signed up for Vietnam II.

Yes, the Guard was mobilized and deployed overseas in both World Wars, but those were true national wars, in which the American people were all involved one way or another. Cabinet wars, as they used to be called, are something altogether different. As Frederick the Great said, cabinet wars must be waged in such a manner that the people do not know they are going on.

But National Guardsmen are the people. To send them into a cabinet war is to misuse them in a way that will destroy them. Even in the American Revolution, militiamen were seldom asked to fight outside their own state. When they were, they usually responded by deserting.

The fault does not lie with the soldiers of the National Guard. Even within their units, they are being horribly misused. One of the Guard`s strengths is unit cohesion: members of a unit come from the same place and usually know each other well, both in the unit, where they serve long-term, and often in the local community as well. In the case of the 1st Battalion, 178th Field Artillery, the Post reports that "to fully man the unit, scores of soldiers were pulled in from different Guard outfits, some voluntarily, some on orders." Cohesion went out the window. One soldier in the unit said, "Our morale isn`t high enough for us to be away for 18 months...I think a lot of guys will break down in Iraq." That is always what happens when unit cohesion is destroyed, in every army in history.

For many Guardsmen, deployment to Iraq means economic ruin. They have mortgage payments, car payments, credit card debt, all calculated on their civilian salaries. Suddenly, for a year or more, their pay drops to that of a private. The families they leave behind face the loss of everything they have. What militia wouldn`t desert in that situation?

The real scope of the damage of Mr. Rumsfeld`s decision to send the Guard to Iraq--40% of the American troops in Iraq are now reservists or Guardsmen--will probably not be revealed until units return. One of the few already back saw 70% of its members leave the Guard immediately.

What the Washington elite that wages cabinet wars does not understand, or care about, is the vital role the National Guard plays on the state and local levels. Once the Guard has been destroyed, who will provide the emergency services communities need when disaster strikes? One would think that in a so-called "war against terror," where the danger to the American homeland is readily acknowledged, someone in the nation`s capital would care about the local first line of defense.

The fact of the matter is that Versailles on the Potomac does not care about the rest of the country in any respect, so long as the tax dollars keep coming in. My old friend King Louis XVI might be able to tell Rumsfeld & Co. where that road eventually ends up.

William S. Lind is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Table align=center]
[urlDr. Bush]http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/obgyn.htm[/url]
[/TABLE]

Top 11 reasons why Dubya said, "Too many OB/GYNs aren`t able to practice their... their love with women all across this country."

1. He thinks an OB/GYN is a faith-based organization.

2. Kerry operatives found the frequency at which Karen Hughes transmits to Dubya`s "hearing aid."

3. Dubya`s adolescent "Dr. Bush" fantasy revealed in unscripted moment.

4. Squandered his attention-span on the first part of the sentence: spelling O-B-G-Y-N.

5. Lost in memory of his favorite television western: "Have Speculum Will Travel."

6. Lowering expectations for upcoming debates.

7. Transparent appeal to female voters who blame themselves after being sexually assaulted by their doctors (an archetypal GOP demographic).

8. Departed CIA director George Tenet is to blame for any inaccuracy in the speech.

9. Tactical flub to divert attention from covering-up Saudi financing of 9-11, allegations of his cocaine use at Camp David, photo of him with service medals he was never awarded, etc.

10. Sending-up a trial balloon for "no gynecologist left behind" legislation.

11. He`s an idiot!

[Joerver]

Baghdad Burning

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_riverbendblog_a…" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_riverbendblog_a…

... I`ll meet you `round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Friday, September 24, 2004

Liar, Liar...
I was channel-surfing yesterday evening- trying to find something interesting to watch. I flipped vaguely to Al-Arabia and Bush`s inane smile suddenly flashed across the screen. Now, normally, as soon as I see his face, I instantly change channels and try to find something that doesn`t make me quite as angry. This time, I stopped to watch as Allawi`s pudgy person came into view. It`s always quite a scene- Bush with one of the alledged leaders of the New Iraq.

I prepared myself for several minutes of nausea as Bush began speaking. He irritates me like on one else can. Imagine long nails across a chalk board, Styrofoam being rubbed in hands, shrieking babies, barking dogs, grinding teeth, dripping faucets, honking horns – all together, all at once – and you will imagine the impact his voice has on my ears.

I sat listening, trying not to focus too much on his face, but rather on the garbage he was reiterating for at least the thousandth time since the war. I don`t usually talk back to the television, but I really can`t help myself when Bush is onscreen. I sit there talking back to him- calling him a liar, calling him an idiot, wondering how exactly he got so far and how they`re allowing him to run for re-election. E. sat next to me on the couch, peeved, "Why are we even watching this?!" He made a jump for the remote control (which I clutch to shake at the television to emphasize particular points)- a brief struggle ensued and Riverbend came out victorious.

You know things are really going downhill in Iraq, when the Bush speech-writers have to recycle his old speeches. Listening to him yesterday, one might think he was simply copying and pasting bits and pieces from the older stuff. My favorite part was when he claimed, "Electricity has been restored above pre-war levels..." Even E. had to laugh at that one. A few days ago, most of Baghdad was in the dark for over 24 hours and lately, on our better days, we get about 12 hours of electricity. Bush got it wrong (or Allawi explained it to incorrectly)- the electricity is drastically less than pre-war levels, but the electricity BILL is way above pre-war levels. Congratulations Iraqis on THAT!! Our electricity bill was painful last month. Before the war, Iraqis might pay an average of around 5,000 Iraqi Dinars a month for electricity (the equivalent back then of $2.50) - summer or winter. Now, it`s quite common to get bills above 70,000 Iraqi Dinars... for half-time electricity.

After Bush finished his piece about the glamorous changes in Iraq, Allawi got his turn. I can`t seem to decide what is worse- when Bush speaks in the name of Iraqi people, or when Allawi does. Yesterday`s speech was particularly embarrassing. He stood there groveling in front of the congress- thanking them for the war, the occupation and the thousands of Iraqi lives lost... and he did it all on behalf of the Iraqi people. It was infuriating and for maybe the hundredth time this year, I felt rage. Yet another exile thanking the Bush administration for the catastrophe we`re trying to cope with. Our politicians are outside of the country 90% of the time (by the way, if anyone has any news of our president Ghazi Ajeel Al Yawir, do let us know- where was he last seen or heard?), the security situation is a joke, the press are shutting down and pulling out and our beloved exiles are painting rosey pictures for the American public- you know- so everyone who voted for Bush can sleep at night.

Allawi actually said "thank you" nine times. Nine times. It really should have been more- at least double that number of Iraqis died yesterday... and about five times that number the day before. Looking back on the last month alone, over 350 Iraqis have been killed either by American air strikes, fighting, or bombs... only 9 thank yous?

The elections are already a standard joke. There`s talk of holding elections only in certain places where it will be `safe` to hold them. One wonders what exactly comprises `safe` in Iraq today. Does `safe` mean the provinces that are seeing fewer attacks on American troops? Or does `safe` mean the areas where the abduction of foreigners isn`t occurring? Or could `safe` mean the areas that *won`t* vote for an Islamic republic and *will* vote for Allawi? Who will be allowed to choose these places? Right now, Baghdad is quite unsafe. We see daily abductions, killings, bombings and Al-Sadr City, slums of Baghdad, see air strikes... will they hold elections in Baghdad? Imagine, Bush being allowed to hold elections in `safe` areas- like Texas and Florida.

The hostage situations are terrible. Everyone is wondering and conjecturing about the Italian hostages. Are they really dead? Is it possible? Seeing the family of the British hostage on TV is quite painful. I wonder if they`ll forever hate Iraqis after this. I saw the plea the made on CNN, asking the abductors to be merciful. Dozens of Iraqis are abducted daily and no one really knows who is behind it. Some blame it on certain Islamic groups, others on certain political groups- like Chalabi`s, for example. It`s hardly shocking, considering our own PM, Allawi, was, by his own admission, responsible for bombings and assassinations inside of Iraq- there is some [urlinteresting information here.]http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Iyad_Allawi[/url]

For those who haven`t read it, you really should. Juan Cole`s "If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?".

- posted by river @ 3:06 PM

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Friday, September 24, 2004
War News for September 24, 2004

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

Bring ‘em on: One US Marine killed in fighting in al-Anbar province.

Bring ‘em on: Three Iraqis wounded in RPG attack on Italian embassy in Baghdad.

Bring ‘em on: Four Iraqis killed, 14 wounded in Baghdad mortar attack.

Bring ‘em on: US patrol ambushed, ten Iraqis wounded in fighting near Dhuluiyah.

Bring ‘em on: Insurgents kidnap six Egyptian contractors in Baghdad.

Bring ‘em on: US air strikes, artillery hit Fallujah.

Bring ‘em on: Three US soldiers wounded in fighting in Sadr City.

Bring ‘em on: Oil pipeline sabotaged near Najaf.

Bring ‘em on: Five Illinois Guardsmen wounded by car bomb in Baghdad.

Bring ‘em on: US troops fighting in central Ramadi.

Rummy calls for limited "elections." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday raised the possibility that some areas of Iraq night be excluded from elections scheduled for January if security could not be guaranteed. ‘Let`s say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn`t because the violence was too great,’ Rumsfeld said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. ‘Well, so be it. Nothing`s perfect in life, so you have an election that`s not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet,’ he said.”

Rummy forgot to tell DoS. The second-ranking official at the State Department said today, in an apparent contradiction of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, that the elections scheduled for Iraq in January must be ‘open to all citizens.’ ‘We`re going to have an election that is free and open,’ Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said at a House committee hearing, ‘and that has to be open to all citizens.’”

More troops. “Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday that he expects Iraq to become a more violent place as elections approach, and he said Abizaid will be getting more troops. Rumsfeld, however, also expects the forces to come largely in the form of new Iraqi security recruits. He also said that more U.S. troops could be sent if combat commanders request them.”

European media abandons Iraq. “Germany`s biggest television network, ARD, said on Friday it planned to pull out its two correspondents in Iraq after a foreign ministry warning that German journalists could be singled out for kidnappings. Separately, the Spanish government has recommended to media that they withdraw their correspondents from Iraq following the increase in attacks and kidnappings there, the newspaper El Mundo said on its Web site on Friday. The Spanish news agency EFE has withdrawn its only Spanish correspondent, Jose Manuel Seage, from Baghdad, a senior journalist at the agency said.”

Commentary

Editorial: “Until Iraq holds free elections, Mr. Allawi cannot claim to speak for more than the narrow coalition of exile parties that maneuvered his appointment as interim prime minister. Increasingly well-organized and deadly attacks are directed against American troops, foreign relief workers and Iraqi security recruits. Sunni towns like Falluja and Mosul and Shiite areas, including much of Baghdad, are gripped by insurgencies that American military analysts believe are nowhere near being overcome. Oil pipelines are attacked regularly, electricity supplies remain erratic, and foul drinking water breeds disease.”

Editorial: “Elections - let alone lasting peace - will not deliver democratic rule to Iraq unless some new undertakings are made and order is restored. Yet it seems that order will not be brought to Iraq merely through the continuing presence of more than 130,000 coalition troops, let alone a premature security handover to the nascent Iraqi authorities. Elections held in such circumstances may not just lack legitimacy but fuel further insurgency. A process that does not genuinely embrace the Shiite majority along with other sectarian and political groups is doomed.”

Opinion: “At the moment there is no evidence the president understands anything about the war. He led the nation into it with false pretenses. He never mobilized sufficient numbers of troops. He seemed to believe the war was over in May 2003. And he seems not to know how to proceed now.”

Opinion: “Mr. Bush claims that Mr. Kerry`s plan to secure and rebuild Iraq is "exactly what we`re currently doing." No, it isn`t. It`s only what Mr. Bush is currently saying. And we have 18 months of his administration`s deeds to contrast with his words. The actual record is one of officials who have refused to admit that their fantasies about how the war would go were wrong, and who have continued to push us ever deeper into the quagmire because of their insistence that everything is going according to plan.”

Analysis: “In truth, the reason for this has more to do with the Sunnis than with Ayatollah Sistani. Without Sunni participation, the election results would be worse than useless. To understand why, one must bear in mind that the purpose of the election is not just to choose a legitimate government but also to elect leaders who can negotiate a new and permanent Iraqi constitution. Although such a constitution would guarantee basic rights, it would be first and foremost a power-sharing deal reached among different factions of Iraqis - Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni. Thus if the Sunnis were excluded because of security problems, or if they boycotted, they would not be able to elect leaders empowered to negotiate on their behalf, and the resulting constitutional deal would be rejected by the great majority of Sunnis as illegitimate.”

Casualty Reports

Local story: Illinois Marine killed in Iraq.

Local story: Indiana soldier killed in Iraq.

Local story: Texas soldier killed in Iraq.

Local story: New York Marine wounded in Iraq.

Local story: Illinois Guardsman wounded in Iraq.


86-43-04. Pass it on.



# posted by yankeedoodle : 1:18 PM
Comment (0) | Trackback (0)

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

COMMENTARY
Democracy in Retrograde
The Iraq war has slowed calls for reform in Iran.
By Hadi Semati
Hadi Semati, a professor of political science at Tehran University, is currently a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

September 24, 2004

The Bush administration hoped that regime change in Iraq would stimulate democratic change throughout the Middle East but, in fact, the opposite is taking place.

Reform movements, despite the promises of the Bush administration, are in retreat across the region, at least for now. Given the enormous antipathy currently felt toward the United States, even to be associated with the U.S. agenda of democratic transformation in the Middle East means the end of legitimacy for many of these groups.

Consider the plight of the reformers in Iran. Seven years after the landslide election of moderate reformer Mohammad Khatami as president, the conservative establishment of the Islamic government (which still controls the vast power of the state) has neutralized him and has successfully aborted the most dynamic and intellectually rich reform movement in the entire Middle East.

There`s no way around the fact that this was made possible, in part, by the incredible violence and instability that accompanied the American "democracy-building" project in Iraq. The invasion and its aftermath shocked the Iranian public, which is deeply worried by the idea of radical change and, at the same time, exhausted by unfulfilled promises of rapid reform.

It is no wonder that Iranians in recent months have slowed their calls for reform, that they have indicated that they want change from within and that they have quietly and hesitantly submitted to the rule of a more monolithic conservative polity. For a lot of people, both among the ordinary public and the elite, the level of instability in Iraq is an unacceptable cost to pay for political reform.

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which border Iran, offered the perfect opportunity for the conservative Iranian clerics to further depoliticize and demobilize the Iranian population. That`s how they were able to "win" the parliamentary elections earlier this year. By appropriating an array of reformist slogans, they ran a campaign on ending factional politics and revamping the economy. Now they are in almost total control, and they are confident that they will take the presidency in the summer of 2005.

What should the United States do? For the last 2 1/2 decades, the U.S. has adopted a containment policy against Iran — one that has not worked to date and will not work in the future. It does not have any effect on Iran`s internal policies, nor does it promote democracy. The policy rests on the very dubious assumption that coercive diplomacy and endless railing against "the axis of evil" can force change.

But, in fact, most changes in Iranian domestic policies have resulted from regime evolution or demographic pressure from within. Castigating Iran constantly as the source of all perils in the region has stopped Washington from developing an effective policy and has given some elements in Tehran strength in exploiting Iranian nationalism.

An expanding middle class and a well-educated society more integrated into the global economy — the signs of which are already visible — are the ultimate guarantor of peaceful social and political transformation. But these will not be encouraged by isolation or bullying.



The truth is that political reform and civil society do not come about by invading countries and toppling regimes. Economic cooperation and cultural and other exchanges between the U.S. and Iran would be more efficient instruments for promoting democracy and establishing lasting security.

The United States should come to terms with the reality that the Islamic Republic is here to stay for the foreseeable future, whether one likes the regime or not. It is a major regional actor, and without it, long-term stability cannot be established in the Middle East.

If the U.S. wants help fighting terrorism and nuclear proliferation, its policies would be more efficient and more fruitful if it engaged Iran, rather than ostracizing it.

Fifty-one years ago the United States actively supported a coup in Iran that toppled the then-nationalist government and changed the course of Iranian history, destroying Iran`s nascent experiment with democracy. The result was the autocratic police state of the shah, which in turn led directly to the Iranian revolution.

Once again the drums of regime change are being heard from influential policy circles in the U.S. The lessons of 50 years ago should be loud and clear: Washington should let Iranians take care of their own dreams and aspirations. Democracy is not something that can be built overnight from outside.




Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

September 25, 2004
California Backs Plan for Big Cut in Car Emissions
By DANNY HAKIM

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 24 - California regulators approved a plan on Friday aimed at drastically reducing over the next 11 years the vehicle emissions of gases that scientists have linked to global warming.

It would be the first such regulation in the nation and one that, if it survives legal challenges, would force automakers to increase sharply the fuel efficiency of millions of vehicles.

Though the plan is being put into place by only one state, automakers see it as the most challenging demand from government since Congress first imposed standards to improve fuel economy in the 1970`s. California is by far the nation`s largest auto market, accounting for a fifth of national sales.

Industry officials said the plan would lead them to restrict sales of large sport utility vehicles and high- performance sports cars in the state. Regulators, including the state`s staff of engineers, sharply disputed that and said the industry already had much of the technology to comply on the shelf or, in the case of gas-electric hybrid cars, on the road.

With seven other states in the East following California`s lead on air quality regulations, the plan could potentially affect about 30 percent of the market. That would present automakers with tough choices about whether to build different vehicles for different markets or develop a unified nationwide strategy to meet the demands of California and the other states.

A representative from New York reiterated on Thursday the state`s support for California`s measure.

But the plan still faces an expected legal challenge on multiple fronts from automakers and could also be blocked by the Bush administration. For years, the industry has tied up previous state efforts to regulate air quality, but regulators say that they have learned from those battles and that they believe they will prevail in court.

Automakers, in sometimes combative testimony, strongly opposed the measure, saying it would be far more expensive than the state projected and that regulators are straying far beyond their traditional role of curbing local air pollution.

The industry also dismissed as unproved the board staff`s presentation of a broad overview of scientific evidence on the health effects of global warming.

The regulation would require the industry to cut roughly 30 percent of the carbon dioxide and other emissions scientists have linked to climate change trends. The standards would phase in from the 2009 to the 2016 model years, with each automaker`s annual new car and truck offerings required to meet increasingly stringent limits.

But the industry said critics sharply underestimated the costs of meeting the standard. The board`s staff projected that the regulation would add about $1,000 to the initial cost of an average new vehicle but that gasoline savings over time would more than make up for that. The industry said it would cost an extra $3,000, much more than the potential fuel savings.

The board`s staff gave some ground, but not much, modifying its cost savings projections to $2,142 from $2,691 - fuel savings minus higher upfront costs.

On Friday, after two days of hearing, the state Air Resources Board, which is appointed by the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, voted 8 to 0 to approve the plan.

"California cannot solve this problem of global climate change by itself,`` said Alan C. Lloyd, chairman of the air board, "but we can certainly do our share."

Thomas C. Austin, the industry`s top research consultant on this regulation, said, "It`s the most challenging regulation that`s ever been proposed by the California Air Resources Board, or even the E.P.A."

Even companies that have long been leaders in improving fuel efficiency raised questions about the plan. "We don`t know how to do it right now,`` said John German, Honda`s manager of environment and energy analysis. "It means using unknown, unproven technology."

The board, along with environmentalists, said the auto industry offered no alternatives, no cooperation and had a history of understating what it could do.

"We have wanted to work with the auto companies, and we have got nothing coming back in return," Mr. Lloyd said during the hearing.

John DeCicco, an engineer and a senior fellow at Environmental Defense, said, "Vehicles are not going to be different in ways that matter to consumers."

While other nations have moved to curb automotive emissions of global warming gases, previous domestic air quality regulations have for decades been focused on a different kind of emission, the smog-forming particles that have been particularly damaging in California.

Those smog-forming emissions can be filtered with a catalytic converter.

But no such filtration technology exists for global warming gases; automakers say that they would have to increase their average fuel economy in the state by 35 to 50 percent within 11 years to meet the standard, a pace not seen since the United States first started regulating fuel economy in the 1970`s.

For more than a decade, fuel economy gains have stalled as the price of gasoline moderated and consumers flocked to sport utility vehicles.

The board`s staff presented a broad overview of recent scientific research, which it said showed how the warming of the planet has already contributed to a variety of health problems.

In California, rising temperatures would bring a variety of specific risks, the board staff said. Higher temperatures impede the state`s battle with smog and can worsen forest fires. They also contribute to the early melting of mountain snow, which can lead to winter flooding and less water runoff for crop irrigation in the spring, threatening the state`s $3.2 billion wine industry.

The board staff also said that rising sea levels, another symptom of the problem, threaten coastlines and could contaminate the state`s supply of fresh water.

"The patient here is the earth and its habitants," said an air board member, Dr. Henry Gong, the chief of environmental health service at the Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center. "The treatment option is here before us today."

A top auto industry lobbyist brushed aside the presentation, calling the theory of global warming "a big if."

The lobbyist, Fred Webber, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a lobbying group that includes Toyota, General Motors and all of the major international automakers except Nissan and Honda, said in a statement: "Californians would see no health benefits under this regulation."

He added in an interview during a break at the hearing: "I come from Maine and we had one of the coldest winters on record. It was very, very cold. A lot of people are scratching their beans about whether global warming is occurring. It`s a question worth addressing, but on a global basis."

Several legal hurdles remain before the plan could take effect. Lawsuits are expected from the industry, which could sue in state court claiming the proposal does not meet mandated feasibility requirements. The industry could also sue in federal court, claiming that the plan is pre-empted by Washington`s authority to regulate fuel economy.

The board has emphasized that the plan is aimed at global warming, not fuel economy directly, and environmentalists have pointed out that emissions can also be modestly reduced by making changes to a car`s air-conditioning system.

The Bush administration could also reject California`s petition to regulate global warming emissions. California and several other states are already suing the E.P.A., which does not consider global warming gases to be pollutants.

Last year, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler dropped a lawsuit over California`s zero-emission-vehicle mandate, a regulation that will require automakers to have 10 percent of their new vehicles meet a variety of stringent smog-forming emission targets. The industry and the state wrangled for years over the proposal, which was first put in place in 1990.

California has unique authority to regulate air pollution, because its air quality regulations predated the federal Clean Air Act.

Other states have the option of following California`s regulations over Washington`s. This year, New Jersey, Rhode Islands and Connecticut have said they intend to start following California`s car rules; New York, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine already do.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 25, 2004
U.S. Launches Airstrikes on Falluja
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 5:40 a.m. ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- U.S. warplanes, tanks and artillery units struck the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah on Saturday, killing at least eight people and wounding 15 in a day that saw new violence across the country and the U.S. military announced the deaths of four Marines.

The Marines were killed in three separate incidents Friday while conducting security operations in Anbar province, the military said. No further details were provided.

In Baghdad, gunmen opened fire on a vehicle carrying Iraqi National Guard applicants, killing six people, police said. The slayings were part of a militant campaign targeting Iraqi security forces and recruits in a bid to thwart U.S.-backed efforts to build an Iraqi force capable of taking over security from American troops.

Police Lt. Omar Ahmed said the group had just left a national guard recruiting center where they had signed up to join the force in the west Baghdad neighborhood of Al-Jamiyah when the attack occurred.

Underscoring just how dependent the government still is on outside help, interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi urged the international community to set aside its differences over the legality of the invasion to oust Saddam Hussein and ``stand fast by Iraq.``

``We need to broaden the base of troop-contributing countries to (the multinational force) so that we would stand more determined and be better equipped to confront terrorism,`` he told the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Friday.

The U.S. military said the Fallujah strikes targeted a meeting point in the center of the city for fighters loyal to Jordanian-born terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

``Intelligence sources reported that Zarqawi terrorists were using the site to plan additional attacks against Iraqi citizens and multinational forces,`` the military said in a statement.

American forces also bombed rebel-built fortifications late Friday, including concrete and earthen barriers and roadblocks, used to restrict movement in the city and mount attacks on Marine positions outside Fallujah, the military said in a separate statement Saturday.

Dr. Dhiya al-Jumaili of Fallujah General Hospital said at least eight people were killed and 15 wounded, including women and children.

Explosions lit up the night sky for hours and at least two buildings in the city center were wrecked, witnesses said. The Fallujah mosque switched on its loudspeakers and clerics chanted prayers to rally the city`s residents.

Earlier Friday, Marines fired artillery rounds after observing a number of insurgents getting out of a vehicle with a mounted machine gun, said 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert, a Marine spokesman.

American troops have not entered Fallujah since ending a three-week siege of the city in April that left hundreds dead.

Saturday`s strikes were the latest in a string of attacks against al-Zarqawi`s network, which has claimed responsibility for numerous car bombings, kidnappings and other assaults meant to destabilize Iraq`s U.S.-backed interim authorities and drive coalition forces from the country.

Among the hostages Zarqawi`s Tawhid and Jihad group claims to have taken is Briton Kenneth Bigley, kidnapped with two Americans on Sept. 16. The Americans were beheaded, one purportedly by Zarqawi himself.

On Friday, the Muslim Council of Britain sent a pair of negotiators to meet with religious leaders in Baghdad to try to win Bigley`s release. The group described Daud Abdullah and Musharraf Hussain as ``well-respected figures in the British Muslim community.``

A posting on an Islamic Internet site Saturday claimed that Bigley had been killed. The claim could not immediately be verified, but surfaced on a Web site usually used by followers of Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to post their statements.

The site also claimed that seven British troops had been captured, but Capt. Donald Francis, a spokesman for the British military said that all forces ``are accounted for.``

He had no information on the claim to have killed Bigley.

Iqbal Sacranie, the group`s secretary-general, on Friday urged Bigley`s captors to free him.

``Our religion Islam does not allow us to harm the innocent,`` said Iqbal Sacranie, the group`s secretary-general. He urged the kidnappers to ``release this man back into the arms of his waiting family.``

Also Friday, authorities said kidnappers had seized six Egyptians and four Iraqis working for the country`s mobile phone company. Gunmen abducted two of the Egyptians on Thursday in a bold raid on the firm`s Baghdad office -- the latest in a string of kidnappings targeting engineers working on Iraq`s infrastructure, in a bid to undermine the U.S.-allied interim government. Eight other company employees were seized outside Baghdad on Wednesday.

More than 140 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq -- some by anti-U.S. insurgents and some by criminals seeking ransoms. At least 26 of them have been killed.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Dies ist ein sehr langer Artikel über die Umweltpolitik Bushs. Wegen der Länge nur der Link. Anmelden bei WaPost ist kostenfrei.
Maob unten im Bild liegt im nordöstlichen Teil Utahs und ist der Ausgangspunkt zu den Arches Nationalparks und dem riesigen Park Canyonland, welcher in weiten Teilen nur mit Pferden oder mit Allradfahrzeugen zu erreichen ist.
Das Gebiet umfasst die Landschaft von Blanding im Süden fast an der Grenze zu Arizona bis nach Green River am Highway 70 nach Colorado.
Vieles von diesen Landschaften ist bekannt durch manchen Wildwestfilm, nicht zu verwechseln mit Monument Valley, das in Arizona an der Grenze zu Utah in einem Reservat(Navajo) liegt.

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE][Table align=center]
Oil wells on federal land near Moab, Utah, may be more widespread in the state after a court settlement allowed more oil and gas exploration.
[/TABLE]
washingtonpost.com
Old and Gas Hold the Reins in the Wild West
Land-Use Decisions Largely Favor Energy Industry

By Joby Warrick and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 25, 2004; Page A01

PARACHUTE, Colo. -- The last sanctuary of the West Douglas wild horse herd is a desolate, forbidding place, which is just how the horses like it. As many as 60 skittish sorrels and bays make their home on the steeper slopes and stony ridges north of here, abandoning the valleys to growing throngs of oil and gas men looking for places to drill.
Weiter:
[Table align=center]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48739-2004Sep…
[/TABLE]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]




September 25, 2004
DISEASE IN IRAQ
Hepatitis Outbreak Laid to Water and Sewage Failures
By JAMES GLANZ

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 24 - A virulent form of hepatitis that is especially lethal for pregnant women has broken out in two of Iraq`s most troubled districts, Iraqi Health Ministry officials said in interviews here this week, and they warned that a collapse of water and sewage systems in the continuing violence in the country is probably at the root of the outbreak. The disease, called hepatitis E, is caused by a virus that is often spread by sewage-contaminated drinking water. The officials said they had equipment to test only a limited number of people showing symptoms, suggesting that only a fraction of the actual cases have been firmly diagnosed. In Sadr City, a Baghdad slum that for months has been convulsed by gun battles between a local militia and American troops, the officials said as many as 155 cases had turned up.
[Table align=right]

Sewage in the streets of impoverished
and violence-damaged Sadr City.
[/TABLE]
The second outbreak is in Mahmudiya, a town 35 miles south of Baghdad that is known for its kidnappings and shootings as well as for its poverty, where there are an estimated 60 cases. At least nine pregnant women are believed to have been infected, and one has died. Five deaths have been reported over all.

"We are saying that the real number is greatly more than this, because the area is greatly underreported," said Dr. Atta-alla Mekhlif Al-Salmani, leader of the viral hepatitis section at Health Ministry`s Center of Disease Control.

The World Health Organization is rushing hepatitis E testing kits, water purification tablets, informational brochures and other materials to Iraq, said Dr. Naeema Al-Gasseer, the W.H.O. representative for Iraq, who is now based in Amman, Jordan.

But viral hepatitis comes in many forms, and another ominous set of statistics suggests that the quality of water supplies around the country has deteriorated since the American-led war began last year, Dr. Salmani said. In 2003, 70 percent more cases of hepatitis of all types were reported across Iraq than in the year before, he said. During the first six months of 2004, as many cases were reported as in all of 2002.

In yet another indication of the deteriorating safety of water and food in Iraq, the number of reported cases of typhoid fever is up sharply this year, said Dr. Nima S. Abid, the ministry`s director general of public health and primary health. Hospitals across the country are also full of children with severe forms of diarrhea, Dr. Abid said.

Those reports come as the Bush administration has proposed shifting $3.46 billion in reconstruction money for Iraq to programs that would train and equip tens of thousands of additional police officers, border guards and national guardsmen in hopes of regaining control of the security situation. The shift, which needs approval by Congress, would gut what had been an ambitious program to rebuild Iraq`s crumbling water and sewage systems, forcing the cancellation or delay of most of the projects. Last fall, Congress approved $18.4 billion for Iraq`s reconstruction; so far, only about $1 billion has been spent.

"The problem is the whole infrastructure," Dr. Abid said of the mounting health problems, adding that many of the difficulties stemmed from neglect that began long before the invasion. But he said, "Definitely no major intervention has been done in this last one and a half years to repair the problem."

Viral hepatitis comes in numerous forms and with a variety of consequences, from benign to fatal. The most common type, hepatitis A, can be spread from person to person or through contaminated water. Like all forms of the disease, it infects liver cells and can cause jaundice and other symptoms, but there is often no permanent damage after recovery, said Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of the Department of Preventive Medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

Though it is also spread through water, hepatitis E, for reasons that are not well understood, is most dangerous for pregnant women, who can lose their unborn children and die, Dr. Schaffner said. He said the disease was found mainly in Central America, India and the Middle East.
[Table align=right]

[/TABLE][Table align=center]
At the Qadisiya Hospital in Sadr City, Layla Muhammad, left, looked after her daughter, Zainab Ali, 4, and Agela Muhammad held her daughter, Ruqay Hussain, 7 months. Both children were suffering from dehydration because of the poor quality of the drinking water in the Baghdad slum district.
[/TABLE]
There is no vaccine to prevent the disease or standard drug regimen to treat it.

The immediate reason for the outbreaks in Sadr City and Mahmudiya appear easy to pin down, Dr. Abid said. The lack of infrastructure induces families to tap into water mains with improvised hoses, he said, citing his own visits to the communities. Small electric pumps are then used to suck water into homes. But in these same communities, sewage either seeps from damaged pipes into the ground or runs freely in the streets, then through cracks and holes into people`s houses. Sewage is sucked in too, becoming mixed with the drinking water and spreading the virus.

An assistant to the director general for water for the Baghdad municipality, who asked to be identified only as Khalid, said that a major water project had been under way for Sadr City, but that poor security had made it impossible to proceed.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 25, 2004
THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
Kerry Promises to Refocus U.S. on Terror War
By ROBIN TONER
Transcript:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics/campaign/25TEXT-K…

PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 24 - Escalating his critique of President Bush as commander in chief, Senator John Kerry declared here Friday that the invasion of Iraq was "a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, Al Qaeda," and asserted that he would refocus the nation`s energies on "the real war on terror."

Less than a week before the first presidential debate, Mr. Kerry took aim at what has long been considered Mr. Bush`s greatest political strength since 9/11 - the perception that he would do a better job keeping the country safe from future attacks. In two fiery speeches here, with widows from 9/11 and mothers of soldiers at his side, Mr. Kerry dismissed that notion and argued that Mr. Bush`s real record on fighting terrorism was a catalogue of mistakes.

"Let me be as blunt and direct with the American people as I can be,`` the Democratic challenger said at Temple University. "The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy - Al Qaeda - which killed more than 3,000 people on 9/11 and which still plots our destruction today. And there`s just no question about it: the president`s misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement of the war in Iraq all make the war on terror harder to win.

"Iraq is now what it was not before the war - a haven for terrorists. George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden the priority. As president, I will finish the job in Iraq and refocus our energies on the real war on terror.``

Mr. Kerry`s speech on terrorism came four days after he unveiled a rough new critique of Mr. Bush`s handling of the war with Iraq, and was intended to lay the groundwork for next week`s debate on foreign policy. It reflected the newly combative tone from the Democratic challenger as he tries to reclaim the political ground lost in August, making the case in speeches and a new round of advertising that Mr. Bush is not a steady wartime leader but a man out-of-touch, who lives "in a fantasy world of spin.``

Mr. Kerry asserted that Mr. Bush had "outsourced" the job of capturing the terrorist leader to "Afghan warlords who let Osama bin Laden slip away.`` He said the president had resisted the creation of the 9/11 commission and then resisted its recommendations for an overhaul of the nation`s intelligence system. And, he said, Mr. Bush had mishandled domestic security, not providing the money needed for protecting American ports, mass transit and airports, and leaving the nation vulnerable as a result.

Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said Mr. Kerry was simply embracing "initiatives that the president is already implementing, even as he cynically attacks the president with defeatist rhetoric and talk of retreat.``

Reiterating a counterattack that has emerged in recent days as Mr. Kerry confronts the Republicans on security issues, Mr. Schmidt added, "John Kerry will say anything he thinks benefits him politically, regardless of its effect on our troops in the field and our allies fighting alongside them.``

Outlining his own antiterrorism plan, Mr. Kerry said he would "make Afghanistan a priority again, because it`s still the front line in the war on terror.`` He said he would put new emphasis on "denying our most dangerous enemies the world`s most dangerous weapons," by securing and reducing nuclear stockpiles. And he said he would lead a new effort to block nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran.

Mr. Kerry also promised to "wage a war on terrorist finances every bit as total as the war we wage on the terrorists themselves.`` He drew one of his biggest rounds of applause when he declared, "I will do what President Bush has not - I will hold the Saudis accountable,`` noting that there had been no public prosecutions of terrorist financers in Saudi Arabia since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Democratic challenger said he would substantially increase money for securing borders, airports and seaports, including $2 billion to upgrade security on subways and railroads, "so that what happened in Madrid doesn`t happen here."

Mr. Kerry also said the United States must have a long-term strategy to deny terrorists "recruits and safe havens.`` He argued that Al Qaeda was engaged in a struggle for the "heart and soul of the Muslim world,`` and the United States could win that war when the people in the region "once again see America as the champion, not the enemy, of their legitimate yearning to live in just and peaceful societies."

To that end, Mr. Kerry advocated an array of proposals to strengthen economic and political development in struggling states, including a new emphasis on debt relief for countries engaged in reform and major increases in money for global health initiatives, particularly those concerning AIDS.

Clearly speaking to the female voters drawn to Mr. Bush because of security issues, Mr. Kerry declared, "No American mother should have to lie awake at night wondering whether her children will be safe at school the next day.``

He was introduced at Temple by two women who lost their husbands in the attacks on the World Trade Center, and he was introduced later in the day at a huge outdoor rally at the University of Pennsylvania by the mother of two soldiers deployed to Iraq, part of a new group of Kerry supporters called Moms with a Mission.

Mr. Kerry, still trying to preserve his voice as he battles a cold, nevertheless seemed to revel in the crowd of thousands that sprawled across a campus green at Penn. He told the cheering crowd that America was "locked in a real struggle`` with terrorism that it must win, but added that the nation could not win by alienating its allies and pushing them to the side.

Mr. Bush "alienated them not because they disagree with his style,`` Mr. Kerry said. "They disagree with his judgment. And we need a new president with a fresh start and better credibility,`` he shouted over the chants of "Kerry! Kerry! Kerry!" He went on, "And I will restore America`s reputation in the world and bring us to a better place."

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Delaware Democrat campaigning with Mr. Kerry on Friday, said Mr. Kerry had told him, "I feel liberated," referring to recent days, when Mr. Kerry had begun to sharpen his attack and confront Mr. Bush head-on on foreign policy.

"Right now, I`m seeing the John Kerry I served with, the guy who says what he thinks,`` Mr. Biden said of a candidate so often described as running his best when running from behind. "I know this John Kerry."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Hat Kerry das Thema gefunden, um Bush unter Druck zu setzen. Seine Reaktion mit den Verdrehungen spricht Bänder. Die Frage ist nur, was kommt bei dem uninformierten US-Bürgern an.

September 25, 2004
Bush Twists Kerry`s Words on Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 6:59 a.m. ET

WACO, Texas (AP) -- President Bush opened several new scathing lines of attack against Democrat John Kerry, charges that twisted his rival`s words on Iraq and made Kerry seem supportive of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein.

It was not unlike the spin that Kerry and his forces sometimes place on Bush`s words.

Campaigning by bus through hotly contested Wisconsin on Friday, Bush sought to counter recently sharpened criticism by Kerry about his Iraq policies:

--He stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week ``he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today.`` The line drew gasps of surprise from Bush`s audience in a Racine, Wis., park. ``I just strongly disagree,`` the president said.

But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam ``a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell.`` He added, ``The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.``

--Bush attacked Kerry for calling ``our alliance `the alliance of the coerced and the bribed.```

``You can`t build alliances if you criticize the efforts of those who are working side by side with you,`` the president said in Janesville, Wis.

Kerry did use the phrase to describe the U.S.-led coalition of nations in Iraq, in a March 2003 speech in California. He was referring to the administration`s willingness to offer aid to other nations to gain support for its Iraq policies.

But Bush mischaracterized Kerry`s criticism, which has not been aimed at the countries that have contributed a relatively small number of troops and resources, but at the administration for not gaining more participation from other nations.

--Bush also suggested Kerry was undercutting an ally in a time of need, and thus unfit to be president, when he ``questioned the credibility`` of Iraqi interim leader Ayad Allawi.

``This great man came to our country to talk about how he`s risking his life for a free Iraq, which helps America,`` the president said in Janesville. ``And Senator Kerry held a press conference and questioned Prime Minister Allawi`s credibility. You can`t lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility.``

Bush repeated the attack later in the day and Vice President Dick Cheney echoed the message in Lafayette, La. ``I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Senator Kerry showed for this man of courage,`` Cheney said.

Kerry`s point was that the optimistic assessments of postwar Iraq from both Bush and Allawi didn`t match previous statements by the Iraqi leader, nor the reality on the ground, and were designed to put the ``best face`` on failed policies.

``Facts can be stubborn things,`` said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer. ``When there`s a gap between the reality and the words coming out of the White House, we are going to point them out.``

That`s not to say Kerry hasn`t been playing fast and loose with Bush`s words.

Just Friday, the Kerry campaign sent an e-mail to supporters entitled ``He said what?`` citing Bush`s remark that he had seen ``a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America.``

The e-mail from campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill accused the president of having ``no plan to get us out of Iraq`` and thinking ``the future of Iraq is brighter than the future of America.``

Bush has a plan for Iraq -- Kerry just disagrees that it is working. And the president wasn`t comparing Iraq`s future to that of the United States, only accurately reflecting one recent survey in Iraq and the latest trends in America that asked participants for their assessment of the direction their countries are going.

After campaigning in Wisconsin, Bush settled into his ranch in Crawford, Texas, which will be his base of operations for several days as he crams for the first debate of the presidential campaign, to be held Thursday in Coral Gables, Fla.

The first practice session was expected to take place Saturday night, with Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., playing the part of Kerry for a couple of hours and a slew of Bush`s most senior White House aides and outside advisers on hand, spokesman Scott McClellan said.

^------

On the Net:

Bush campaign: http://www.georgewbush.com

Kerry campaign: http://www.johnkerry.com

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

September 25, 2004
An Un-American Way to Cam

President Bush and his surrogates are taking their re-election campaign into dangerous territory. Mr. Bush is running as the man best equipped to keep America safe from terrorists - that was to be expected. We did not, however, anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda. Yet that is the message they are delivering - with a repetition that makes it clear this is an organized effort to paint the Democratic candidate as a friend to terrorists.

When Vice President Dick Cheney declared that electing Mr. Kerry would create a danger "that we`ll get hit again," his supporters attributed that appalling language to a rhetorical slip. But Mr. Cheney is still delivering that message. Meanwhile, as Dana Milbank detailed so chillingly in The Washington Post yesterday, the House speaker, Dennis Hastert, said recently on television that Al Qaeda would do better under a Kerry presidency, and Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has announced that the terrorists are going to do everything they can between now and November "to try and elect Kerry."

This is despicable politics. It`s not just polarizing - it also undermines the efforts of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency to combat terrorists in America. Every time a member of the Bush administration suggests that Islamic extremists want to stage an attack before the election to sway the results in November, it causes patriotic Americans who do not intend to vote for the president to wonder whether the entire antiterrorism effort has been kidnapped and turned into part of the Bush re-election campaign. The people running the government clearly regard keeping Mr. Bush in office as more important than maintaining a united front on the most important threat to the nation.

Mr. Bush has not disassociated himself from any of this, and in his own campaign speeches he makes an argument that is equally divisive and undemocratic. The president has claimed, over and over, that criticism of the way his administration has conducted the war in Iraq and news stories that suggest the war is not going well endanger American troops and give aid and comfort to the enemy. This week, in his Rose Garden press conference with the interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, Mr. Bush was asked about Mr. Kerry`s increasingly pointed remarks on Iraq. "You can embolden an enemy by sending mixed messages," he said, going on to suggest that Mr. Kerry`s criticisms dispirit the Iraqi people and American soldiers.

It is fair game for the president to claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was a blow to terrorism, to accuse Mr. Kerry of flip-flopping and to repeat continually that the war in Iraq is going very well, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is absolutely not all right for anyone on his team to suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists. And at a time when the United States is supposed to be preparing the Iraqi people for a democratic election, it`s appalling to hear the chief executive say that loyal opposition gives aid and comfort to the enemy abroad.

The general instinct of Americans is to play fair. That is why, even though terrorists struck the United States during President Bush`s watch, the Democrats have not run a campaign that blames him for allowing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to be attacked. And while the war in Iraq has opened up large swaths of the country to terrorist groups for the first time, any effort by Mr. Kerry to describe the president as the man whom Osama bin Laden wants to keep in power would be instantly denounced by the Republicans as unpatriotic.

We think that anyone who attempts to portray sincere critics as dangerous to the safety of the nation is wrong. It reflects badly on the president`s character that in this instance, he`s putting his own ambition ahead of the national good.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Noch eine Geschichte über die Nation Guard. Es ist schon seltsam, was sich US-Bürger alles gefallen lassen.

September 25, 2004
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
A Family Says an Unexpected Goodbye to a Reluctant Soldier
By CAROL E. LEE

Growing up, my sister and I were known as "the girls" to the adults in our family. This nickname was even more in evidence when we visited our grandparents in Cleveland four times a year. There were only five grandchildren: my two cousins - both boys - my brother, my sister and me. My older brother and cousins were the coolest kids I knew; my sister was a stand-in companion I resorted to between exhausting attempts to tag along with the adventurous trio. I`d abandon her and our Cabbage Patch dolls to chase after them as they disappeared into the woods to make boy mischief. But my little legs could never catch up. This was a club that "the girls" would not get into.

Eventually the boys` macho alliance softened, and the five of us became fast friends. As we got older, there was security in knowing that no matter how much time had passed, we could always meet over a couple of drinks and pick up where we left off.

Still, we were pursuing different paths to maturity, and when my cousin Alan - the youngest - joined the Ohio National Guard after graduating from high school in 1997, none of us could fully relate to his choice. We weren`t familiar with the emotional volatility that comes with having a soldier in the family.

But the National Guard seemed a fairly unthreatening option, as the military goes. My primary concern was whether Alan was in good enough shape to get through the arduous training. Once that was over, he had to train with his unit for only one weekend a month and two weeks a year for the next six years. His name would then be placed on an inactive list for another two years, unless - as the recruiter who visited his high school had explained - our country needed his skills during a natural disaster or a college riot.

There was no question that the five of us could work our rendezvous around these obligations. And in the event of a flood or a hurricane, we could be proud that he was there to help.

But two-day weekends became four-day weekends, two weeks stretched to three weeks, and full college tuition shrank to half the tuition for vocational school. Alan grew disenchanted with the National Guard, and the feeling seemed mutual. After he stopped showing up for duty, he was given a general discharge. His name was still placed on an inactive duty list - a roster he was told was only for an unprecedented national disaster that active-duty soldiers couldn`t handle alone. Barring such an event, he could continue building his civilian life as a plumber. He packed away his uniform, and none of us ever thought about it again.

Until last month. Alan received orders to report for "involuntary" duty on Sept. 12. Not in Florida, where hurricanes have uprooted people`s lives. In Iraq. For a year and a half: 545 days to be exact, with two possible extensions.

Under a Sept. 14, 2001, executive order signed by President Bush, the Pentagon can deploy former National Guardsmen, like Alan, who have not been associated or trained with a unit in years. This "stop loss" policy kept his name on an inactive duty list of troops who could be transplanted at any time from any place in America to an unpredictable war zone abroad - and kept there beyond their original deployment stipulations.

Along with the brave members of the military serving in Iraq, and the men and women from the National Guard who have been called up to do more than their duty, there are now thousands of stunned civilians who, like my cousin, have been blindsided by the president`s executive order.

Many, like Alan, were teenagers from working-class families looking for a boost onto a higher economic plane when they enlisted. They signed up for college tuition, health benefits, and floods and fires - not 545 days abroad, car bombs and insurgents.

Driving to Cleveland earlier this month to say goodbye to Alan, I wondered how families are supposed to handle the bittersweetness of a celebration for a loved one they may never see again - or who may not return as the same person, having seen the horror of war. Do they acknowledge the haunt of mortality in the air? Do they point out that the guest of honor`s laugh sometimes echoes in slow motion? Are you allowed to ask his views on the war he may die for?

I did. "I never signed up for this," Alan told me as we drove to the airport to pick up my brother. "Why are we even over there?" I stared out the window at the flat Ohio landscape and wondered whether the life he regards as the "real" one would be still there when he returned from Iraq.

Alan`s fiancée, Mystica, is an active member of the National Guard. The fact that she recently returned safely from Iraq probably soothes some of his fears - after all, she`s about one-third his size. But Mystica had expected to be sent. She had viewed a tour in Iraq as inevitable. For Alan, it was a bolt out of the blue.

The day before he received his summons to the active-duty Army as a combat engineer, Alan and Mystica had put a deposit down on an apartment. They took the letter to the landlord and asked for a refund, and Alan left his job so he could say his goodbyes.

With my brother finally in town, the five of us gathered for a raucous sendoff. We started at our grandmother`s house. She was ranting about needing a new cordless phone but refusing to buy one in a protest against how complicated they`ve become. We knew that her complaint was a front for her reluctance to replace the one on which Alan had slyly penciled "OLD-LADY" into the space for her phone number before he left for basic training nearly seven years ago. The prospect of her not being around to see him return this time must trouble her mind.

Later that night, we toasted Alan with shots of tequila and laughed until our stomachs hurt. I soaked in every bit of his wisecracking personality that I could - and realized what soldiers` families must all learn: moments like these call for ignoring the dire possibilities and parting as if there`s no reason to think we wouldn`t soon be back at the same place, picking up where we left off.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[Joerver]

Bush und Busharraf, es scheint so, ob man sich selbst die eigenen Mörder großzieht.

September 25, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Twisting Dr. Nuke`s Arm
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — President Bush has been searching vainly for Osama bin Laden for three years now, so I`ve decided to help him out. I`m traveling through Pakistan and Afghanistan to see whether I can find Osama, bring him back in my luggage and claim that $25 million reward.

So for the last few days, I`ve been peering into mosques and down village wells, even under mullahs` couches. No luck so far, but I did find something almost as interesting.

I`m talking about the arrangement under which the U.S. cuts Pakistan some slack on nuclear proliferation, in exchange for President Pervez Musharraf`s joining aggressively in the hunt for Osama - in the hope of catching him by Nov. 2.

If a nuclear weapon destroys the U.S. Capitol in coming years, it will probably be based in part on Pakistani technology. The biggest challenge to civilization in recent years came not from Osama or Saddam Hussein but from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan`s atomic bomb. Dr. Khan definitely sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, and, officials believe, to several more nations as well.

But, amazingly, eight months after Dr. Khan publicly confessed, we still don`t know who the rest of his customers were. Mr. Musharraf acknowledged as much in an interview.

"I can`t say surely that we have unearthed everything that he`s done, but I think we have unearthed most of what he`s done," Mr. Musharraf said. Translated, that means: I`m afraid you`re eventually going to find out about other transactions that we`re still trying to hide.

American intelligence experts haven`t been able to interrogate Dr. Khan, and Mr. Musharraf claims that the U.S. has not even asked to do so. "Let me put the record straight: nobody asked us to be allowed to question him," Mr. Musharraf said.

President Bush apparently did not ask for that direct access at his meeting on Wednesday with Mr. Musharraf, and it`s clear that the administration is not pressing the issue. Why? Because Mr. Bush in this election season has another priority: getting Mr. Musharraf to help catch Osama.

Unless he`s pressed hard, Mr. Musharraf won`t make Dr. Khan available. Dr. Khan is a Pakistani hero, and there`d be great outrage if so-called Yankee anti-Muslim crusaders were allowed to interrogate him. "There would be a very strong reaction," warned Ghafoor Ahmad, a senator and Islamic politician.

An interview with Senator Ahmad is a reminder that the alternatives to Mr. Musharraf could be worse: Mr. Ahmad indignantly told me that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11. He suggested that it might have been a joint operation of the U.S. government and Mossad.

So which other countries would Dr. Khan implicate if we could interrogate him?

Mr. Musharraf confirmed that the Saudi defense minister had visited Dr. Khan`s laboratories a few years ago, but he insisted that Saudi Arabia was not a nuclear customer. I`m not so sure.

The Saudis, alarmed by Iran`s bomb program and jealous of Israel`s, may well want their own nukes. But if the Saudis build a bomb, so will Egypt, and all hell will break loose in the Middle East.

Mr. Musharraf also denied that Syria was one of Dr. Khan`s clients. A Syria with nukes would also not be a prescription for stability in the Middle East. In addition, Dr. Khan had ties with African countries, and those ties are not yet fully understood.

The charitable explanation for Mr. Bush`s failure to get to the bottom of the Khan affair is that putting too much pressure on Mr. Musharraf would risk his destruction in the crucible of Pakistani nationalism. And the U.S. government certainly has a genuine interest in catching Osama as soon as it can.

Yet it`s impossible to overstate the risks if countries like Saudi Arabia or Syria develop nuclear weapons because of Dr. Khan`s help. Mr. Bush portrays himself as Mr. Security, defending America from terrorism, but the paramount security threat we face is a nuclear 9/11, which could kill half a million Americans in one explosion. Whatever its electoral concerns, the White House simply can`t be so complacent about tracking down Dr. Khan`s other nuclear clients.

Aargh. My last column ended with a jet-lagged correction that repeated the error it was meant to fix. William Rood saw John Kerry`s Silver Star incident, not the Bronze Star episode. Mea culpa squared.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company